Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Roplas India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT315Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture fibre reinforced plastic body of motor vehicles on chassis by various customer including semi finished jeeps from M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, which were being received under Rule 57 F (2) on which such bodies were being fitted and thereafter the goods were being removed without payment of duty upto December, 1993.Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of these bodies was taken and was utilised for clearance of the bodies which were cleared on payment of duty. They were contesting credit on removals of certain goods as they were contesting duty liability . The issue, as regards their activity being of excisable nature as conducted was in dispute.It was settled in their favour. On 16.12.1994 the assessee informed the department that they were eligible for Modvat credit/input credit, as their products were excisable and the credits reversed with effect from 1.3.1992 will be taken in their RG23A part II register and accordingly a credit amou...

Ma Core Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT228Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and manufacturer and clear Medicaments falling under chapter 30 of the Central Excise Traffic Act, 1985. They had filed a classification list for the product Gripe Water, claiming the classification under 3003.39 of Traffic and started clearing the product at a rate of 8% advalorum as applicable under that heading. The differential duty of 10% i.e.rate difference between. 3003.10 & 3003.30 was directed to be paid vide letter dated 18/3/98 by the Superintendent along with direction of further clearance to be made under 3003.10 duty rate. A show cause notice dated 15/5/98 was issued demanding duty differential form 1.1.1998 to 30.4.1998 along with penalty and interest proposal under 3003.10, same was confirmed. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority. Hence the appeal. a) the product consist of only 2 ingredients known to Ayurvedic Sciences and mentioned in the authoritative books, out of several...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Saurastra Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT1060Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) by the Revenue.2. The respondents received a generator (Capital Goods) in their factory on 20/10/98 but did not install it prior to 01/04/2000. The total CVD paid on the generator was Rs. 15,60,072.28. The respondent took 50% of that amount as credit in 2000-2001 and the balance in the next financial year. The contention of the Revenue is that since the generator was received at a time when an assesses can avail of only 75% of CVD paid (the generator was imported under Project import Regulation) the assessee ought to have taken only 50% of 75% and not 50% of the full CVD paid by taking advantage of amended provision which allowed such availment. In other words, since the capital goods were received into the factory in 1998, the position prevailing in that year would apply to such goods irrespective of the fact that the capital goods were installed in the year when full credit is admissible.3. The Commissioner (Appe...

Glaxo Smithkline Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s Glaxo Smith-Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd formerly known as M/s Glaxo India Ltd, a company registered is an appellant in this case.They are engaged in the manufacturing sale of drugs, pharmaceutical?, fine chemical diagnostic & animal feed supplements. They along with M/s Burrough Wellcome India Ltd another company herein after referred to as BWIL for short are independent subsidiary of Glaxo Wellcome Pvt Ltd (now known as Glaxo SmithKline Service Pvt Ltd) UK, pending a formal merger of BWIL & appellants, to be carried out fully. BWIL is also engaged in the manufacture & sale of wide range of drugs & pharmaceutical products. The joint operation costs incurred by the appellant for BWIL are allocated & reimbursed as per an agreement.2. Pursuant to verification of Notes of accounts (Section 18(12) (b)) of the Balance Sheet for 1998 & 1999) it was found, by the officers, that the appellant has recovered certain amounts towards 'Staff Costs' & other expenses ...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Blue Star Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT461Tri(Mum.)bai

a) The issue in classification of 'INSULATED POLYURETHANE FOAM PANELS' and " INSULATED POLYURETHANE FOAM DOORS" should be wider chapter 3926.10 and 3925.91 as per the appellants and approved by Ld CCE (Appeals) or under 8418.00 as claimed by Revenue in this appeal. b) The goods are in the form of polyurethane foam panels and doors supported by stainless steel frames with hinges and latches. c) Polyurethane foam panels consists of 61% foam 8.39% painted steel while doors have 59% foam and 41% painted steel. The panels form the wall section, door and roof and floor sections are also made in standard sizes to result in composite construction of polyurethane foam in place, between two metal sheets enclosing a space. They can be assembled to erect a pre-fabricated room, of different sizes as per requirement for cold or hot storage. d) Architect certificates have been produced to claim the entities as use of the same in buildings distinct from Refrigerating equipment and they arc not panels...

Birla Copper Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT239Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are manufacturers of copper electrodes, continuous cast copper rods etc. and avail credit of duty paid on inputs. During the course of manufacture, fully duty exempted gold bars and silver bars also emerge. They reverse 8% amount equivalent to the sale value of such exempted goods as required by Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.2. Such reversals are effected by. debit entry in the PLA. A consolidated debit entry of such 8% amount was made on 20.2.2001 for an amount of Rs. 16,43,97,493/- for the period July 2000 to January 2001.However, the assesses found that for the month of January 2001 on five invoices, an amount of value taken was Rs. 21,99,60/155/- while the actual value to be taken was only amounting to Rs. 2,19,60,155/-; the calculation and reversal of 8% on the 3 incorrect value of Rs. 21,99,60,155/- resulted in a clerical error excess debit of Rs. 1.584 crores, vide entry 22 dated 22.2.2001 in the PLA. They ...

Vvf Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT237Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was clearing an intermediate product, viz. fatty acid, on payment of duty to his sister concern and the latter was taking modvat credit of duty paid on the fatty acid and used it in the manufacture of final dutiable products. By notification 45/00-CE(NT) dated 30.6.2000, it was laid down that in such cases, the assessable value of the goods (goods cleared for captive consumption) would be 115% of the cost of production. The appellant was not aware of this notification and continued to clear the intermediate product on payment of duty as earlier. On receipt of a letter from the Range Superintendent that the assessable value should be calculated in accordance with notification 45/00, the appellant recomputed the assessable value and paid differential duty of Rs. 13,14,888/- and intimated the Range Superintendent accordingly. Later, the Range Superintendent if formed the appellant that interest was payable by him under Section 11AA or Section 11AB as well. Thereafter, a ...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Zuari Argo Chem. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondents in appeal No. E/3435/99, (hereafter refers to as ZACL) are manufacturers of Argon gas. They entered into an agreement with M/s BOC, who had advanced an amount of Rs. 12 crores interest free, to ZACL before commencement of production of Argon gas, this loan was to be adjusted against supplies to M/s BOC who were to lift 100% of the production. The following points, learnt from the agreement entered, were alleged in the enumeration in the notice to cause extra commercial consideration, between ZACL and BOC and the nexus between the advances made and the sale price. 3. (a) ZACL are charging lower prices when Liquid Argon is cleared to BOC's bottling units and higher prices when the same is cleared to BOC's bulk customers such as TISCO, Special Steels. Ispat Profile. Shree Ishar Alloys Etc, whereas the invoices are issued in the name of BOC. A comparative chart showing the disparity in pricing when Liquid Argon is cleared to BOC and when the same is cleared to its bulk cust...

R.H. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For an imports made, a Show Cause Notice was issued as it was considered that there was no contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices and the transaction of the present appellant import was sought to be rejected by relying upon the Price List for the sale of similar goods to Dubai and value was proposed determination under Rule 7 by recourse to local price in the market.2. The appellants contested the proposition in the Show Cause Notice by submitting that Fax dated 16.3.1998 of the supplier stating that the alleged price list being Exhibit C to an affidavit filed was fake and that the supplier has not sold any goods to Dubai in the last three years has not been adequately dealt with or met with by the lower authorities. The Commissioner in his finding has held that there are no contemporary imports of identical or similar goods and there was no evidence of invoice manipulation or surreptitious compensation.Therefore, the rejection of the transaction val...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mahaveer Engineering

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing the ld. DR, the respondent being absent, and on considering that revenue is aggrieved against the order of CC (Goa) in having ordered the confiscation of a lot of 175 old and used diesel engines imported vide BE/99/21-7-1997 under Section 111(d) and offering a redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs on the value accepted of Rs. 14,84,800/- as per the reports furnished by the department's approved valuers/engineers and in having imposed a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- only on the grounds - (i) When exact make model number and year of manufacture is not established, by the importers and the valuation has not been arrived at as per Boards guidelines by following the accepted depreciation method, then the value suggested and accepted by the valuer was low and should not have been relied. (ii) Market enquiries reveal the larger capacity of ISUZU engines to be sold at Rs. 45,000/- per piece and the smaller engines at Rs. 25,000/therefore Margin of Freight would work out Rs. 250% to 200%. ...