Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Inducto Cast.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner(appeals) who had reduced the quantum.2. M/s. Inducto Cast, Respondents in this appeal are the manufacturers of C.I. casting, tractor parts etc, availing cenvat facility. Central Excise officers visited their premises on 28.4 2003 and detected certain anomalies. A SCN was issued on 29.7.2003 contemplating recovery of duty and imposition of penalty.When the case came up for adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed/appropriated the duty (Rs. 1,26,554/-) already paid under Section 11A and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 25.Being aggrieved, the respondents went in appeal. The Commissioner (A) observed that the appellants did not contest duty liability. Their only plea was on imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Finding that the goods were removed under proper central excise invoices, the Commissioner (A) took a lenient view and brought down the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. Ag...

Bombay Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in this case relates to rejection of claims for refund of Rs. 13,17,34,703.65 (Rupees Thirteen crores seventeen lakhs thirty four thousand seven hundred three and paise sixty five only) filed by the appellants for period from 27-9-1979 to 28-2-1994 of duty paid on Tortoise brand Mosquito Coils. The refund claims arise as a result of classification dispute - the assessee claimed the product as insecticides classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act and eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No. 55/75 dated 1st March 1975 as amended and that from 1st March 1986 the product was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3808.10 and chargeable to NIL rate of duty. The classification dispute was settled by the Tribunal by its order No. 260/90-C dated 19th March 1990 accepting the contention of the assessee. The Tribunal's order was upheld by the Supreme Court on 28-2-94. Although the assessee had been filing the claims right from Oc...

Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. who are manufacturers of motor vehicles/availing Cenvat credit in respect of the goods received by them. They availed Cenvat credit following the procedure prescribed vide Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.2. A show cause notice was issued to them on 24.10.2003 alleging that they had failed to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs sent to job workers for further processing and not received back in their factory within 180 days of their being sent to the respective job workers. It was also alleged that they had utilized the Cenvat credit, equivalent to the amount which ought to be reversed as per erstwhile Rule 57A(5) of the Central Excise (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 and Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and Central Credit Rules, 2002 respectively for reasons cited above, for payment of duty of excise in terms of erstwhile Rule 57AB(b) of the Central Excise (Second Amen...

20 Microns Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 Heard both sides. The dispute in the present appeal involves, interalia, the correct classification of 'Calcined China Clay'. The appellants sought to classify the said calcined China Clay in the declaration filed by them under chapter heading 26.06. The Appellants during the course of adjudication proceedings alternatively claimed classification of the said Calcined China Clay under chapter heading 25.05. By the impugned order, the respondent has classified the said calcined china clay under chapter sub heading 3824.20.1.2 the appellants procure raw 'kaolin' in its ore form, which is a naturally occurring hydrated aluminium silicate. This raw kaolin is crushed and fired in klin which is heated to a temperature of about 1200 degree C. This process of calcinations removes excess water. The material emerging from the klin is in lumpy form which is crushed and agglomerated. The particles are then separated as per required size.2.1 Note 2 to chapter 25 as introduce on 1st March 1986, ...

Anant B. Timbadia and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In this miscellaneous application filed by the applicants have stated that one M/s. Kunal Overseas Limited purchased on high seas sale basis a large quantity of plastic moulding powdered such as HOPE, LDPE PVC, etc. from M/s. M.K. Industries, M/s. Anant B. Timbadia & Co. (the applicants), M/s. Par Petrochem Limited, Petro Impex India Pvt. Ltd. and Vishwanath Industries Limited. The applicants have sold one M/s.Kunal Overseas Limited certain graun-ules which were cleared duty free against advance licence under DEEC scheme by them. Subsequently investigations were carried out by the DRI Officers revealed that M/s.Kunal Overseas Limited had sold the goods in the open market in contravention of actual user condition. The applicants have received the full payment through proper banking channels and the DRI Officers during investigation had forced the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs (twenty lakhs). The show cause notice was adjudicated and proceedings were dropped. The de...

Dy. Cit Vs. Ramnord Research Labs. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-1 -2002. One filed by the assessee bearing IT A No. " 1064/M/02 and the other filed by the revenue bearing ITA No. 1659/M/ 02. The issues in the two appeals are different but a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for assessee about the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, on the ground that there was no valid satisfaction.2. The facts of the case are that assessment for assessment year 1996-97 was completed under Section 143(l)(a). In the return of income filed E originally, a claim of Rs. 19,33,105 was made, which was incurred on repairs of the premises taken on leave and license basis.The assessing officer discovered that such expenditure could not have been allowed as revenue expenditure but is a capital expenditure. He reopened the assessment by recording following reasons : In the return of income filed, claim regarding deferred revenue expenditure of Rs. 19,33,105 inc...

Cce Vs. Gadhinglaj Taluka Ssk Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC37

1. In this case M/s. Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd., Kohlapur (Respondent) are the manufacturers of sugar, during the manufacture of which a by-product called 'Spent Wash' is generated. The said spent wash is being used by the respondents for manufacture of 'Compost Fertilizer' which the respondents sell in the market.2. In this case the appellants namely, Revenue, have filed the present appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has passed a speaking order concluding that it is incorrect to hold that molasses is used in the manufacture of compost fertilizer and that there could not be any case of recovery of any amount under Rule 57CC.3. Learned Jt. C.D.R. reiterates the grounds of appeal in which the Tribunal has passed the decision ascertaining the payment of 8% amount on the value of exempted Ethyl Alcohol. The case laws cited are as under: 4. Learned Advocate has referred to the two Member Bench decision in the case of E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy reported...

Suprabha Protective Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of various excisable goods falling under Chapters 48, 28, 29 & 34. He filed a classification declaration for the products classifying them under various chapter headings. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification determined by the original authority in the following manner. It is held that (a) Rustopaper made out of plain kraft paper and polycoated kraft paper classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 4811.90, (b) Rustopaper made out of HDPE/LDPE laminated paper under 5911.90, (c) Rustopaper bags made out of rustopaper under 4819.90 and the bags made out of laminated paper under 5911.90, (d) Rustopreventive oil under 2710.90, (e) Rustopreventive jel under 3403.00, (f) Rustopliq under 3403.00, (g) Rust remover under 3823.00, (h) Tyre lubricant under 3403.00, (i) Rust converter under 3403.00.3. The appellant contends that insofar as rustopaper made out of plain kraft paper and polycoated kraft paper is concerned, no p...

Cce Vs. Hemant Plastics and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC45

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned Order, while confirming the demand of duty, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty.2. None has appeared for the Respondents during the hearing. Learned Jt. C.D.R. reiterates the grounds of appeal.3. On being pointed out the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi-III v. Machino Montel (I) Ltd.) (T-LB) wherein the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had refrained from imposing penalty/charging interest on the ground that duty was paid well before the issue of show cause notice the learned Jt. C.D.R. produces the recent decision in the matter of Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. passed by the two Member Bench of this Tribunal (Final Order No.A/681-683/WZB/2005-C-II dated 19.7.2005). This Order seems to attempt at "fine tuning" the Larger Bench's decision in the case of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. It is held here that the intention on the part of the evader...

Modison Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC477

1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Modison Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai-II holding that refund under Rule 173L is not admissible in this case.2. Learned Advocate informs me that 5 refund claims were filed by them under Rule 173L for the goods returned to the factory for remaking and consequently clearing again on payment of duty. Only 2 show cause notices were issued by the lower authorities and while deciding the matter 3 subsequent refund claims were also cuddled together and the orders were passed. According to the learned Advocate there is a gross violation of principle of natural justice, and that they have not given full opportunity to be heard in person.3. Learned Jt. CDR has no objection for remanding the matter so as to comply with the principle of natural justice.4. I have examined the case record and heard both sides and I am of the view that the lower authorities have not strictly followed the principle of natural justice befor...