Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

C.C. Ex. Vs. Sudarshan Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT114Tri(Mum.)bai

a) "Assessee avails input credit and manufactured pigments & preparation based thereon from these inputs. During the course of manufacture certain by products in Ammonium gas dissolved in water as per pollution Control Board instruction is discharged in huge Effluent Treatment Plants. The question is whether this solution of 69% to 80% Ammonium along with other Toxins sent/used in Effluent Treatment Plant would be excisable chemicals under chapter 28/29 of CETA 1985. b) The lower authority on finding that the assesee had been clearing the impugned goods to their Roha Plant would establish the instability & the fact that the assessee had declared the said goods in the classification list/declaration filed by them under Rule 173 B & cleared on payment of duty to Roha & the valuation thereof is only in dispute. The question of marketability would be established. The valuation arrived at based on the basis of market enquiries would be applicable & the assumed price by ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Surya Packaging

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT409Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the matter was called, the respondents were absent. Heard the departmental representative in the appeal filed by the Revenue and considered the materials.2. On perusal of the order of the Commissioner impugned, it is found that the Commissioner has come to the following findings : (a) "G.P's also mention that the cut wrappers (vertical) are cleared in rolls and not as individual containers and hence it was a fact known to the department at the relevant time." This finding would indicate that such wrappers etc. were not cut to shape and size and therefore following the Board's Circular No. 42/90, dated 23-10-1990, the classification has to be determined under 4823.90 and not under Heading 4823.19. The appeal on classification is required to be allowed. (b) As regards the finding of Commissioner on bar of limitation, the matter is remitted back to the original authority to redetermine the issue of limitation after ascertaining the facts on record since from the GP 1 in the paper...

Movilex Irrigation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT409Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes and fittings classifiable under Heading 3717.00. They were selling the said pipes and fittings from their factory gate as also from the depots.They filed two declarations for the said sale with their Jurisdictional Central Excise Office wherein the price charged from the customers was identical. However, in respect of depot sales they claimed deductions of 4% on equilised account of freight, thus lowering the assessable value in respect of the depot sales. Assessment were made provisionally and subsequently finalized vide the impugned order of the original authority wherein he rejected the deduction claimed by the appellants in respect of the depot sales on the ground that inasmuch as the factory gate sale was available, the same is required to be adopted in respect of depot also. For the above proposition the lower authority has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Coll...

Oriental Veneers Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai confirming duty demand of Rs. 4,88,584/- (out of the total demand of Rs. 39,93,852/- raised in the show cause notice), imposing penalty of equal amount on the company and Rs. 3 lakhs on its Managing Director and confiscating seized goods with option to redeem on payment of fine, the assessee company and its Managing Director, as well as the Revenue has preferred the above appeals. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of duty demand, imposition of penalties and order of confiscation while the Revenue is aggrieved by the dropping of the balance demand of Rs. 35,05,268/-.2. We have heard both sides. The basic grievance of the assessee is that of violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants have not been supplied with copies of some of the documents relied upon in the show cause notice in spite of repeated request for the same; the request for cross-examination of customers confirming receipt of ...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Delta Trans Conductors (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturer of "Paper covered winding wires" and approved (sic) the classification list for the benefit of S.No. 1(ii) of notification No. 69/86 and to be falling under heading 8544.00.2. a. They were issued a notice dated 18.9.91 on to why duty should not be demanded by denying the benefit under S.No. 1(ii) of the notification and duty be demanded under S.No. 4 thereof, since entity under S.No. 1(ii) i.e. 'winding wires of copper' would mean and cover only enamelled copper wire and not insulated copper wire as manufactured.b. the lower authority found that the wording of S.No. 4 of notification covers insulated copper wire (including enamelled or anodised) the goods being insulated by any product, as paper in this case they would be covered by S.No. 4. The assessee contention that being round in shape the wires would fall under S.No. 1(ii) will not hold good. It was also held to be a wilful mistake to call for invoking of the proviso classification ...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Priti Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT873Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondent were engaged in manufacturing of excisable Man Made Fabrics and availed Modvat Credit as per law, on the inputs. Since they were exporting the fabrics & manufactured, under Bond, without discharging duty thereon, the Credit of Modvat in balance could not be utilised. They were entitled to refund of such credit by the CCE (A).It who found- i) Rule 57F (13) provide for cash refund of unutilised credit and major portion of the goods manufactured were exported & the Credit on balance & utilization thereof is not in dispute. ii) The adjudicators finding, & evidence that credit could not be otherwise utilised was not sustainable since statements were submitted, showing production clearance & exports, & the figures were available from monthly returns filed & were required to be considered. Paying duty from Personal Ledger Account & claiming refund would not be beneficial to the assessee, therefore there is no reason to suspect that the assessee h...

Tulsi Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Vinay R. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,97,55,946/- and penalty of Rs. 1,51,47,537/- under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rs. 46,00,000/- under Rule 173Q upon M/s. Tulsi Alloys (P) Ltd., and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on its Director and Authorised Signatory, respectively arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat The, demand has been confirmed by holding that M/s. Tulsi Alloys (P) Ltd, clandestinely produced and cleared 64,24,098 kgs of ingots valued at over Rs. 13 crores without the cover of duty paying documents, without payment of duty and without accounting for production and clearance in statutory books during the period from April, 1996 to August, 1098.3. We find that the evidence relied upon by the Commissioner to support the finding of clandestine clearance inter alia consists of inculpatory statement of Shri Gokul Chand Sharma, who is the authorised signatory of the c...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT439Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is revenue's appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue involved relates to admissibility of the refund claim which was rejected by the original authority on the ground that, the claim was made beyond the period of six months from the date of payment. It is revealed that, the amount of Rs. 59,94,279/- was deposited by the respondents in terms of directions given to the respondents by the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of provisions contained in Section 35F of the Act to make such a pre-deposit as a pre-condition to hear their appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide a final order allowed the respondent's appeal. Hence pursuant to the said order-in-original in their favour, the claim for refund was made which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground of limitation as stated earlier. On their appeal against the rejection order the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supre...

Shri Pradeep Surajbhan Agrawal Vs. Shri Bapu Krishna Yedava,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)ACC76; 2004(4)BomCR526; [2005(104)FLR156]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal has been filed under Workmen's Compensation Act. The only question involved is whether the employer can be saddled with liability of payment of interest and penalty when an insurance policy was in existence on the relevant date.2. The accidental death occurred on 7.3.1990. The parents of the deceased filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation as the appellant was the owner of the truck No. CNB 5694 as also the employer of the deceased. The application was allowed after; evidence has been recorded. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the compensation payable is an amount of Rs. 10,548/-. The amount awarded by way of an interim relief on 16.8.1990 in the interim application filed under Section 140) of the Motor Vehicles Act for no fault liability should be deducted. The insurance company had deposited the amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 16.8.1990 as awarded by the Commissioner on 23.5.1990.3. Mr. More, learned Advoc...

Shri Laxman Khandu Shinde Vs. the Managing Director, Vasantdada Shetka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC644; 2005ACJ1387; 2004(4)ALLMR323; 2004(4)BomCR524; (2005)107BOMLR893; [2005(104)FLR242]; 2004(4)MhLj816

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation disallowing the appellant's claim to be indemnified by the insurance company.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:The deceased Shivram Dhondi Kumbhar was working as a driver with the appellant who was the owner of the truck No. MHL-3931. The truck was engaged by Respondent No. hereinafter referred as 'Karkhana') for transporting sugarcane. On 3.12.1991, while the truck was being loaded with sugarcane in the premises of Respondent No. 1, the deceased met with an accident in the premises of the Karkhana resulting in his death. On 31.1.1992, the Karkhana being the principal employer deposited the amount of compensation in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sangli. This amount was distributed to the legal heirs of the deceased on 22.5.1992. The Karkhana filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for b...