Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Godrej Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC193

1. The appellants herein are engaged in manufacturing of Godrej 'Jumpin' drinks of various fruit flavours besides other excisable goods. 15 Show cause notices demanding duty short paid/not paid on goods cleared by them during the period from 01/09/1993 to February, 1997, details of which are in the annexure to this order, were issued, proposing recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 8,59,09,619.09. The notices proceeded to demand duty on the basis that the Godrej Jumpin drinks of flavours Mango, Guava, Pineapple, Lime and Orange fall for classification under CETA sub-heading 2202.90 as ready to serve non-alcoholic beverages, and not under CETA sub-heading 2001.10 as preparations of fruits put up on unit containers and intended for sale as claimed by the assessees; and that the benefit of exemption from duty under the Notification 19/91-CE was not available as the goods falling under CETA Chapter heading 22.02 were not covered by the notification. In addition, to above mentioned 15 notices,...

Mafatlal Burlington Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT49Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereunder, the demand of Rs. 3,78,729/- confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner has been upheld, as also the penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The demand was raised against the appellants on the ground of delay in receipt of the duty paid goods in the factory for reprocessing after the stipulated period of one year prescribed under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (Rules) & also the failure to give intimation to the Range as well as Divisional Office in the prescribed format. It is also stated that the appellant did not mention any details of reprocessing or repairs carried out on such returned goods. It is further alleged that there was delay in dispatch of the material within the stipulated period of 6 months, for which appellant had sought extension from the Assistant Commissioner.3. I note that the basic ground is of delay in filing the required intimation (D-3), relating...

Kirloskar Brother Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT450Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereunder payment of Rs. 4,03,201/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority was upheld besides penalty to the extend of Rs. 1,00,000/- was sustained.2. The aforesaid duty was demanded from the appellants in respect of the duty paid on pig iron allegedly used in the exempted final product.The appellants claimed that, the duty paid Pig Iron was used only for manufacture of products attracting duty. They had also procured Pig Iron in respect of which no credit was availed and which was utilised for manufacture and clearance of products which did not attract any excise duty.3. The appellants claim that, they had prepared a statement showing the tonnage of material on which credit has been taken and the quantity of finished product cleared on payment of Excise duty. In some cases, modvat calculated is more or excess and in some case, this is less.They have prepared a statement from ...

Vimla Ramesh Shah and Mahavir Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT295Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,55,890/- (in both the appeals) confirmed as a result of denial of benefit of Notification 11/97-Cus on the ground that the goods imported have been opined to be not suitable for use in insole making, by the CLRI, we find that it was possible decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit.2. We find that the importers had raised the plea that the goods about which the CLRI has given its opinion in July, 1997 were different from the goods imported by them for the reason that, while the CLRI report is in respect of flock fabrics, the Deputy Chief Chemist's report in respect of the goods imported by them is that "the sample is in the form of light brown colour flexible sheets made of base woven fabrics of cotton on one side and blended spun yarn of polyester and viscose on the other side and coated/laminat...

Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereunder the claim for Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 1,49,607/- was disallowed. Imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, was also confirmed.2. The appellants have pleaded in that the credit has been denied on (1) Benjo Bolt (2) ECM Spares and (3) Erato-68/Hydraulic oil. So far as Benjo Bolt is concerned, it is seen that the credit has been dis-allowed on the ground of non-filing of declaration under Rule 57-G.This position is contested.3. As regards ECM (Electro Chemical Machine), spare it is stated that the credit has been wrongly availed under inputs instead of claiming the same under capital goods.4. In respect of body slugs and screw on stub, Tray for Nozzle, Haltekorper and Seimec Acid, the claim was disallowed again on the ground of non-filing of declaration. The appellant claims these goods are covered in terms of generic description figuring in the Modvat declaration dated 10/06/1998, a ...

Cellulose Products of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT559Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. M/s. Cellulose Products of India Ltd., Kathwada, Ahmedabad, is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under various chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. On scrutiny of miscellaneous invoices issued by the assessee, it was noticed that they have cleared a bye-product viz. used caustic wash liquor emerged during the course of manufacture of the finished goods i.e., CMC, which is classifiable under Chapter No. 28 of CETA, 1985 and chargeable to appropriate rate of duty. The assessee cleared the bye-product referred above without payment of appropriate rate of duty.They have also failed to file true and correct declaration of the classification and price. It is the case of the appellant that they have purchased caustic soda chemically known as sodium hydroxide as input on payment of duty. Therefore, used caustic wash liquor in question cannot be considered to be caustic soda classifiable under Chapter head No. 2815 of the CETA, 1985. After...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Borasar Machines

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT33Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal whereunder the Commissioner (Appeal) had granted interest to the Respondent for the delay in sanction of refund claim. The impugned order grants interest to the Respondents for the period from 12/2/1998 to 27/9/2000 at the prescribed rate. The Revenue challenges the said order by claiming that the interest is payable from 14/8/1998 to 27/09/2000 and not from 12/02/1998 to 27/09/200 as mentioned in the Order-in-Appeal.3. It is noted that the Respondent's claim of rebate for Rs. 5,57,075/- was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 29/8/97 and instead of paying the amount by cash, the said amount was adjusted against a confirmed demand of Rs. 22,24,093/- pending against respondent. The respondent challenged the demand order and the appeal in question was allowed by the Commissioner (A) vide order dated 12/11/97. The order for payment of the amount of Rs. 5,57,075/ was made by the Dy. Commissioner on 27/09/2000...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Poona Bottling Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC501

1. The instant appeal from the Revenue is directed against the order-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereunder the order of the Additional Commissioner seeking recovery of Rs. 9,84,627/- from the respondents was set aside.2. Briefly stated, the respondents, who are the manufacturers of aerated water, challenged the Notification No.203/87-CE dated 09/09/19987, whereby modvat benefit under Central Excise Rules 1944 was withdrawn in respect of aerated water industry.3. The respondents filed a writ petition, which was dismissed.Subsequent to such dismissal, the respondents were issued direction by the Additional Commissioner on 06/04/98 to make the payment of in admissible credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said direction, for recovery, holding that, the demand for credit reversal is time barred. The Revenue appeal challenges the said order.5. The challenge to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) holds that the...

Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT653Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of Magnetic Type Liquid Level Gauges falling under Chapter 90 of Customs Tariff Act, and cleared the same on payment of duty. This was in the year 1995. Later the appellant realized that he ought not to have paid the duty as the goods w ere exempt from payment of Customs duty under Notification No. 276/92 Customs dt. 23/9/92. The said notification exempts goods falling under Chapter 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act when imported into India for renovation or modernization of a fertilizer plant from the whole of the customs duty subject to the following conditions: (a) An officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Department of Fertilizer certifies that the scheme for renovation or modernization as the case may be of the said fertilizer plant has been granted techno-economic clearance of the said Department and (b) Recommends in each case the grant of the above said exemption of the said goods for such purpose.2. The D...

Sakharam Bhoju Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR183; 2005(1)BomCR386; 2004(3)MhLj1018

B.R. Gavai, J.1. The petitioner by way of present petition challenges the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 24-10-1991 in Revenue Appeal No. 67/B-109/91 thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kelapur vide which the land admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas was directed to be restored to the respondent No. 2 herein.2. The short background giving rise to the present petition is as under :--That the respondent No. 2 herein made an application dated 21-1-1988 to respondent No. 3 Tahsildar claiming therein that the petitioner was in possession of survey No. 35/A admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas owned by the father of the respondent No. 2. The said application was made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The said application was replied by the petitioner on the ground that since 1964 the father of the p...