Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Ganpat Khanderao Deshmukh Vs. Ramchandra Tukaram Gawande and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj902

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 13th July, 1988 in Revision No. Ten. A. 128 of 1985. Briefly stated, the land in question is an agricultural land bearing Gat No. 38 admeasuring 10 acres 33 gunthas of Village Chachadgaon, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik. The petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of the suit land, which was originally Class IV-B Inam land. After Inam was abolished, the land has been converted to Rayatwari on payment of regrant charges and the land has been regranted to the petitioner in the year 1965. The petitioner had issued notices to the respondents demanding arrears of rent for the period 1960-61 and terminating the tenancy rights in respect of the suit land. Thereafter, application was filed by the petitioner for possession of the suit land on the ground of default on 1st August 1974, being Application No....

Ashish Cans and Containers Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of the excisable goods viz., Plastic Tanks in various Sizes falling under Heading No.39. The appellants also manufactured plastic milk can falling under Heading 3923.19.2. In respect of plastic cans, during the relevant period, the Appellant had claimed and were availing the benefit of total exemption under Notification No. 14/92-CE dated 1.3.1992 as amended and/or under corresponding Sl Nos of successor notification namely, 15/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 and/or 8/96-CE dated 23.7.1996 and/or 4/97-CE dated 1.3.1997.Exemption conferred by Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 was availed in respect of the Plastic Tanks.3. The Appellant had filed the declarations with the Divisional authority, inter alia, claiming exemption under the aforesaid Notification for the two final products.4. The main raw-material used by the Appellant for the manufacture of their final products is HDPE/LDPE granules which was being procured by them on payment of d...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Pawan Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai. By this common order, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided seven appeals filed by two appellants before him. The issue being identical, he decided all these appeals by a common order.2. The importers had imported certain consignments of 'zinc dross' scrub grade specifications vide various Bills of Entry and goods were examined, samples were tested and goods were cleared. However, as regards valuation, the declared price of such goods were noticed to vary between US$ 510 to 800 p.m.t. within the span of two months. The factors of variation in purity and quantity were not found to have effected the prices. Relying on the London Metal Exchange price for 'zinc dross' of similar grades during the relevant period, it was found that the declared price of US$ 510 per p.m.t. and US$ 610 p.m.t. in the present imports was not a genuine price and calculations based on the London Metal Exchange prices an...

Graver and Weil (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Issue in these appeals revolves on the eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 56/95 which grants exemption to goods specified in column (4) of the said Table subject to the conditions, if any, laid down in column (5) thereof. The relevant entry reads as ----------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Chapter No. or Description Rate Conditions Heading No. sub of goods---------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)---------------------------------------------------------------39 85.43 Machinery 10% ad for the valorem 2. (a) The entities, claimed for benefit of the notification and under dispute, are falling under Heading No. 85.43. The appellant is a manufacturer of Electro Plating Plant, & Equipment's. The entities under dispute were, by an earlier order on 22.6.93, granted the benefit under Notification 51/93 by holding that the said entities were used for production of a commodity and classification list were d...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal. Respondents herein are an assessee under Central Excise Act 1944. They manufacture and pay duty on goods under head 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The sale of final products was made through depots, Revenue's case is that a deduction was claimed on account of transport charges incurred for transporting the goods from factory gate to the depots. This was not shown separately on invoices issued from the factory. Since there was no delivery at the factory gate, the ownership remained with the assessee therefore proviso of Section 41(a) and Rule 5 of the Valuation Rule 2000 are not applicable the valuation should be arrived under Section 4(1) b Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. The demand being for the period January 2002 to March 2002, the provisions of Section 4 as on 1.7.2000 are applicable.2 a) The original authority which finalizing the provisional assessment for the said period disallowed the deductions on account of freight shown separately in the depot...

Hindustan Biologicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue relates to classification of a product called pentatone liquid. The appellants contend that the said goods fall under chapter heading 3003.10 as patent arid proprietary medicines attracting Central Excise duly at the rate of 15% ad valorem whereas the department proposes classification under chapter heading 2107.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 attracting Central Excise duty of 20% ad valorem. The product is a mixture of vitamins, salts, iron and calcium packed in bottles with a label which announces that it is a good health tonic. The label also says that one tablespoon of 15 ml. per day or as advised by the physician should be taken. The label also claims that it has prophylactic use. However, the label does not give any indication that it is a medicament and the licence to manufacture it has been given by the Drug Controller. In the light of this evidence, the department decided classification of the goods under Chapter 21. In the impugned order, the Commissio...

Suresh Synthetics, M.G. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT345Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The three stay application in these appeals emerging from the same order are being disposed off by this Common order.2. Appellants, in appeal No. E/1598/04-Mumbai, are a 100% EOU on whom duty demands of Central Excise Duty have been confirmed along with penalty under Rule 209. Appellant in appeal No. H/1595/04 Mumbai is Director of 100% EOU assessee Company and in K/1600/84 is the purchaser of the goods supplied by the 100% EOU under para 9.10(b) of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. They have been penalized under Rule 209A.3. Commissioner relying on the decision in case of M/s Himalaya International (2003 (154) ELT 580 (Tri LB) holding that duties would be liable under proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and the argument use of different words 'sale' in para 9.9 & 'supply' as per 9.10 (b) would not change the situation, and notification 125/84 is not attracted and benefit of notification 2/95 is not eligible, arrived at duty liability and penalty liability on the manufactur...

C.C.Ex. Vs. G.T.C. Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Assistant Commissioner incharge of the Respondent factory held that paper backed aluminium foil issued for manufacture inrolls, it consequent embossing and cutting to shape / size taking place in situ during process of packing of cigarettes would not result in new exigible manufacture.2. Appeal was filed by Revenue, since the aluminium foil were first embossed and then cut to size before being used for packing cigarettes Therefore the process resulted in a different distinctly identifiable product to emerge classified separately under a different sub heading of the tariff. The nature and use of the emergent entity being entirely different from the Aluminium foil taken up for embossing and cutting to shape/size. Therefore if the nature of process being continuous would not change the facts. Duty was therefore required to be paid on such Embossed cut to shape/size paper backed Aluminium foil with effect from 1.3.94 due to withdrawal of exemption notification 180/88 as amended by noti...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. B.M.K. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard the appellant. The respondent is called absent. The respondent has not been served. Earlier, it has been ordered to effect service on the respondent through the Commissioner's Office. There is no intimation of service produced. The matter underwent three adjournments. As the appeal is ripe for disposal, the same is taken up for consideration.2. M/s. BMK Polymer Pvt. Ltd. alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rule 173-F and 173-G(i) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1994, in as much as they have cleared excisable goods valued at Rs. 16,17,674.75 at concessional rate of duty i.e. 5% Adv. instead at 15% Adv. after crossing limit of Rs. 75.00 lakhs as admissible under Notification 175/86 dated 1.3.86. Thus, they have cleared goods without determining the proper duty payable on the goods cleared in excess of aggregate value.3. The original adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,69,855.86 as alle...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Mukut Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This Revenue's appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed the appeal before him.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent manufactures excisable goods falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. He had filed classification declaration No. 1/98-99 w.e.f. 1.4.98 and 2/98-99 w.e.f. 2.6.98 for various products manufactured by him and claimed exemption under Notification No. 38/97 CEX dt. 27.6.98 and 9/98 dt.2.6.98 respectively for the goods availing modvat benefit. The purpose of availing benefit of Notification No. 38/97 dt. 27.6.97 the manufacturer is required to exercise his option in writing before the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the option shall be effective from the date of exercise of such option and that such option can not be changed during the financial year. The allegation is that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition In view of the abo...