Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Mtv Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 61,30,175/- and penalties of Rs. 500/-under Section 75A, Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76, Rs. 6000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 1,22,60,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is allowed, in view of the earlier orders waiving pre-deposit when service tax was levied and penalty imposed on applicants in similar situation treating them as broadcasting agencies, prior to 16-7-01 when service tax became specifically leviable on broadcasting services. Pre-deposit waived and recovery stayed pending the appeal....

C.C.E. Vs. Lenec Institute of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who had accepted the respondents' claim for classification of product containing predominance of vitamins and iron, under GET sub-heading 3003.10 as P & P medicaments, rejecting the claim of the Revenue for the classification of the product in question viz. 'Sipro Syrup' under CET sub-heading 2936.00.2. We have heard the Id. Jt. CDR and perused the records; none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. We find that the product 'Sipro Syrup' has the following description :-______________________________________________________________ Each 5 ml contains______________________________________________________________Ferrous Giuconate 100 mgSodium ascorbale 37.5 mgNiacinamide 25 mgFolic acid 0.5 mgVit B-1 2.5 mgVit B-2 2.5Vit B-6 0.75Vit B-12 2.5 mg.______________________________________________________________ According to the Revenue, the product has no curative effect against any bacterial fungal or viral diseases...

Shri PravIn V. Gada and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC243

1. The above appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962. The ld.Counsel for the applicants submits that the amounts directed were deposited although belatedly and prays that since the amounts have been paid in compliance with the Tribunal's stay order, the dismissal order should be set aside and the appeals restored to its original numbers.2. The ld.D.R. fairly leaves the matter for decision by the bench.Since the amount as directed has been paid, we condone the delay in pre-deposit, set aside the order of dismissal for non-compliance and restore the appeals for hearing to original numbers....

Poly Paper Convertors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Id. Consultant submits that the Appeal No. E/2144/05 relates to denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,69,824.69 on account of raw materials used in the manufacture of final products which has been destroyed by fire. Another appeal No. E/2145/05 relates to an amount of Rs. 85,961/- on account of duty payable on finished goods destroyed in fire. He submits that the fire has broken down on 6-1-2002 and he has filed remission application but the said remission application was dis-allowed on 10-9-2004. He also submits that the appellants have filed the insurance claim but the same is not yet settled. His contention is that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the decision in the case of Asian Paints (I) Ltd. wherein the Tribunal has inter alia held that "When fire having resulted from an accident beyond control of assessee not disputed, remission of duty under Rule 49 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 called for as expression "any goods" in said Rul...

Bagwe Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have confirmed duty demand of Rs, 9,450/- on clearances of goods to M/s. BHEL by including inspection charges in the assessable value of admiralty brass tubes supplied to M/s. BHEL, confiscated waste & scrap of copper, confiscated seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed penalty of amount equal to duty in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalty of Rs. One lakh under Rule 173Q in addition to imposition of penalties on the officers of the appellant company.2. None appears for the appellants. Hence, we heard the Id. SDR and perused the records.3. Inclusion of inspection charges and duty demand as a consequence of such inclusion is to be sustained as inspection was mandatory for goods supplied to M/s. BHEL and the inspection was carried out prior to the removal of goods. We, therefore, uphold the duty demand by inclusion of such inspection charges.4. As regards confiscation of seized goods, t...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd.

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, Mumbai.2. The Respondent is a manufacturer of sugar syrup based products such as Neogadine, Neogadine (SG) etc. which are products attracting state excise duties. In the process of manufacture of these products, the appellants manufacture sugar syrup. The Department's contention is that this sugar syrup is excisable and duty on this intermediate product falling under Chapter Heading No. 1702.30 of CETA, 1985 is payable. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the Respondents evaded payment of Central Excise Duty during the period December 1992 to August 1997, of Rs. 89,78,618/-. Penalty under Section 11A was proposed and extended period of limitation was invoked.3. The Respondents contended before the Commissioner that : (a) The process starting with preparation of solution till addition of alcohol is continuous process; (b) Sugar syrup remains in the state of over-saturated solution due to lar...

J.i. Gandhi Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we find that the application is against the duty demand of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest and penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The data relevant to be considered at this stage as the appellant's stenter was closed for the period 30/06/2000 to 16/07/2000 and since the stenter was closed, the appellant case is that they are not required to discharge any duty for the period the stenter was so closed.2. Both the sides fairly agree that the request made for abatement has been decided against the assessee. In view of the same as we would consider that the appellants should be placed to certain terms of pre-deposit to meet the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Considering that the financial hardship is not seriously pleaded before us by the applicants, we would consider the applicant to put the terms of pre-deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs towards duty and on such a deposit being made and compliance thereof to b...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. German Ink and Shri Liladhar V.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal No. RKS/294-295/DAMAN/2003 dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Daman, for enhancement of the penalty amount.3. The assessee also filed two similar appeals against the same Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Daman, for setting aside the penalty amount. The Tribunal, by its Order No. A/333-34/WZB/2004/C-IV dated 25.05.2004, dismissed the appeals filed by the assesse, wherein it is observed as follows: Heard both sides. The dispute here is regarding the quantum of penalty. Considering the fact that the duty involved is only Rs. 83,791/-, the penalty on the first appellant is reduced from Rs. 83,791/- to Rs. 20,000/-and penalty on the second appellant is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal is otherwise dismissed except for reduction in penalty.4. At the time of disposal of the appeals filed by the assessee, t...

Apar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and articles thereof at their factory at Dharmsingh Desai Industrial Park, Village Bahutha, Taluk Savli, Dist. Vadodara in Gujarat State.They supply various quantities of their products, aluminium conductors, to various locations at Patna, Secundrabad and Bangalore. After filing classification declaration and claiming benefit under Notification No.108/95-CE in respect of each of such supplies made, certificates in terms of the said Notification issued by the Project Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and countersigned by the Addl.Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India, were also obtained and signed, evidencing that the material was supplied and appropriate certificates were issued by the General Manager of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., duly endorsed by the Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India, were also supplied.Notwithstanding the above and also the fact that there...

Vardhman Acrylics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case Modvat credit was allowed by the department in respect of PVC pipes used for carrying untreated water upto water treatment plant. Only in respect of those pipes which carry the treated water for growing plants (as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and also on the basis of 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board) Modvat facility was denied. The limited issue, therefore, is whether Modvat credit can be allowed in respect of those pipes which carry treated water for agricultural purposes situated within the factory compound and as per the directions of the Gujarat High Court/Pollution Control Board.2. The learned Advocate referred to the provisions of Rule 57Q as it existed in 1994 and also as it exists after 1997. In 1997 the modified Rule 57Q uses the following expression :- The goods ... used in the factory of manufacturer of final products". According to the learned Advocate, in 1997 the rules has been made more flexib...