Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Voltas Ltd., R.P. Tiwari, C.D. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC76

1. The appellants are manufacturers of air conditioning machines and machinery and parts thereof. Pursuant to an intelligence that they had misclassified their products, namely condensers and chillers under Chapter Heading 8419.10 with effect from 1.3.1997 and were paying duty @13% ad valorem instead of 30% ad valorem under Chapter Heading 8415 which was required as per the changes introduced by Finance Bill of 1997 resulted in evasion of duty, also inputs sent for job work under Rule 57F (3)/(4) were not received back within the stipulated period of sixty days from the job workers, Modvat credit was misutilised, were visited by the officers, enquiries were caused to be made, a Show Cause Notice was issued. However, even prior to the issue of the Show Cause Notice, the appellant had reversed an amount of duty of Rs. 37.33 lakhs approx, Rs. 67,000/-approx of Modvat credit reversed in respect of inputs not received back within sixty days, the remaining amount of Rs. 36.66 lakhs approx o...

National Leather Cloth Mft. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals have been disposed of by these common orders since the issue involved in the same.2. The appellants are a manufacturer of Leather Cloth 'Release Paper' imported duty free and/or obtained as inputs. This release paper is used in the machinery to assist in the manufacture of Leather Cloth. It does not become part of the Leather Cloth. After fitting such release paper the 'used release paper is removed from the machinery and cleared from the premises of the manufacturer. Other manufactures of Leather Cloth make use of the said used release paper in the manufacture of Leather Cloth in their premises. Finally this release paper results in waste scrap of paper. The appellants were charged with failure to - (i) File proper classification declaration in respect of the said Waste of Release Paper as required under Rule 173 B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) Determine the proper Excise duty on the said used Release Paper prior to their removal as required under Rule 173F...

Shaper Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC127

1. Officers of the Headquarters Preventive, Mumbai VII Commissioner, Central Excise, pursuant to an intelligence carried out search/stock taking operation and a Show Cause Notice pursuant to enquiry made was issued No. V/Adj(15/Seiz)48/98/M-VII dated 18.8.1998 to 17 notices therein to show cause as to why - i) Modvat credit of Rs. 1,26,17,981/- wrongly availed by M/s Shaper Chemicals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'Shaper') on goods not received in the factory during the period 1995 to September 1997 should not be disallowed and recovered under Rule 57I(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. ii) Amounts of Rs. 84,9621 & Rs. 20.00 lakhs paid by them in RG23A and TR 6 challans should not be confirmed. iii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 24,5666/- on raw material found short should not be confirmed. iv) Excess stock of raw material and finished goods not be ordered to be confiscated.Show Cause Notices were also issued to the supplier of Shaper M/s Rang Rasayan Udyog dt 14.9.1998, M/s Pra...

V.i.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC153

1. The benefit of project import has been denied to the appellants herein on injection moulding machine imported and cleared by them, on the ground that it was not installed in the appellants' plant at Nashik in respect of which the project was registered under Project Import Regulations, but installed at another plant of the appellants at Nagpur.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that in the case of CC, Mumbai v. NRB Bearing Ltd., 2003 (159) ELT 755, the Tribunal has held that the benefit of project import is specific to unit and location as per the Regulations and since the goods were found installed in a unit other than at the location approved under the contract registered, the benefit was not available.The ratio of the above order is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, even though in this case the appellants aver that DGTD permission had been obtained for a new plant at Nagpur....

Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC103

(a) appellant had filed classification declaration No 125/95-96 claiming classification under 89.05 for a product 'Pontoon with Spuds.' The Assistant Commissioner issued a notice seeking an amended declaration under Heading 89.07.00, heard the matter, visited the marine yard of the appellants, and after considering, and on perusal of the drawing plan for construction of the said entity held as in his words - "the original plan for construction of a pontoon of size 24 x 24 m x 2 m with spuds was sought to be split up into two portions with spuds of size 12 x 24 x 2m." The present portion sought to be delivered as per assesseess' letter dated 9.2.1996 is of size 12 m x 24 m x 2 m. On visual inspection, it seems that the item in dispute is a floating structure of 10 segments formed together with the help of interlocking pins through male and female lugs on the side of the segments. On joining, there remains a gap of about 2 mm. These pins are said to be put manually for joining the segme...

Airex Valves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT384Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order rejected the appellant's appeal.2. The issue is that the appellant sent certain inputs for further processing to a job worker after taking modvat credit on them. They have done so after paying 10% of the credit so taken, through their PLA account. When they received the processed goods they credited their PLA for the amount originally paid (10%). The procedure prescribed for this kind of movement of inputs for further processing is that an assessee is required to debit his RG23A part II to the extent of 10% of the credit taken on the inputs and when the inputs are received back they could take credit back the credit in RG23A part II for the same amount.What the appellant had done is not in accordance with the procedure laid down. Therefore, the department disallowed the credit taken by the appellant in his PLA. A fair offer seemed to have been made by the original authority to the appellant t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Deepak Fertilizers and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that liquid and solid ammonia is classifiable under 14 HH in the erstwhile tariff even though there is a specific entry under 14H. The rival entries read as follows:- 14H - GASES including liquefied or solidified gases, the following, namely - 14HH - Fertilisers, all sorts, but excluding natural, animal or vegetable fertilisers when not chemically treated. (Fertilisers are exempt from the whole of excise.) 2. The Commissioner held that ammonia is classifiable under 14HH as the product is directly used as fertilisers. The Department agrees that ammonia is used as a fertiliser and no evidence was brought out by the Department that the product is otherwise used and the balance of convenience will rest in favour of the manufacturer.3. The Learned SDR, Shri A. Shukla argued that ammonia is specifically mentioned in tariff item 14H whereas it is not s...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Toshniwal Holding P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT414Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue is classification of Head Cleaning Video Tape and eligibility to SSI Notification. The CCE (Appeals) after noting that the Brand name application by the Respondent has been entertained by the Trade Mark Registry office, upheld the classification Head Cleaning Video Tape under Heading 8523.19. Revenue is in appeal on the ground that Head clearing Video Cassettes does not cease to be a video cassette simply because of change in function & it should be classified under 8523 only.3. The contention of Revenue now made before us and that of CCE (Appeals), as regards the classification of Head Cleaning Tape is not correct on a simple perusal of the HSN Notes. It is apparent that Heading 85.22 would specifically cover Tapes for Head Cleaning. Appeal is therefore allowed, after setting aside the order & remitted back to the original authority to re-determine the classification & other issues, after applying the HSN Notes and hearing the appellants....

National Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT293Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn has confirmed the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 3,10,324/- taken during the month of August 98. The duty paying documents viz., duplicate copies of the invoices were claimed by the appellants to have been lost and hence it was alleged by the department that the credit was not supported by valid duty paying documents Besides, there was a denial of credit of Rs. 28,057/- and 6,960/- relating to inputs sent for reprocessing, in violation of Rule 57F of the modvat rules.2. The appellants claim that the file containing duty paying documents viz., duplicate copy of manufacturer's invoice and the challans issued under Rule 57F, have been lost while the file was being taken for making zerox copies. The incident of loss of file was also reported to the Police and jurisdictional range officers. Notwithstanding this, the authorities below proceeded on the premises that required duty-paying documents having no...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Elegant Product

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT52Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the finding & the orders of the CCE (appeals) to the effect- "5 I have considered the evidence on record and submission made by the appellants. I find that in the impugned order the Assistant Commissioner has denied exemption under notification No. 38/97 dated 27.6.97 on the ground that the appellants fail to filed a letter of option for availment of the exemption under notification No. 38/97 dated 27.6.97 in respect of classification list No. 11/98-99 w.e.f 1.1.98. However, I find that earlier to his classification, the appellant filed declarations under Rule 173B w.e.f. 1.4.97 vide Sr. No. 1/97-98 claiming therein exemption under notification 38/97 dated 27.6.97. It is not a case that the appellants thereafter gone out of modvat but confirmed to be in modvat scheme. I hold therefore that just because a separate letter of option was not pled for the claim of such an exemptions, that itself cannot be ground for denial of exemptions which is a right ...