Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Asian Techs. Ltd. and Geo-tech Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT183Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellants manufactures PSC girders at site to be used in the construction of a railway bridge for Konkan Railways during the period June 1994- Feb 1995 and cleared them without payment of Central Excise duty. By a show cause notice dt. 8.5.96 the appellants were asked to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 53,91,498/- should not be demanded from them, why 14 PSC girders cleared without payment of duty should not be confiscated, and why penalty should not be imposed on the person concerned. The Commissioner adjudicated the case demanding duty, confiscating the girders which were by then removed to be placed on the bridge and imposing penalties. Hence these appeals.4. The ld. Advocate argued that the show cause notice is barred by limitation in as much as it was issued beyond the statutory period of six months as it existed at the relevant time as the Department had knowledge of the fact that the appellants were manufacturing PSC girders in 94 itself. The show cause notice was ...

Panetrical Engg. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT120Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 These appeals arising out of the same order are being disposed by this common order.1.2 M/s. Panetrical Engg. Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred as PEP for short) is a Private Limited Company with Directors Mr. Vivek Bolinjkar and Mr. Lokhande. They are engaged in the manufacture of Parts of Motor Vehicles. They have two units, i.e. at 34B Balaji Industrial Estate, Akurli Road, Kandivli(E), Mumbai and other one at Gala No. 1, Singh Estate, Road No. 3, Kandivli (E), Mumbai.1.3 M/s. Zenith Engineering (herein after referred to as Zenith) is a role proprietary concern of Mrs. M.V. Bolingkar having its factory at Gala No. 3, Singh Estate, Road No. 3, Kandivli(E), Mumbai.1.4 A sole proprietary concern of Mrs. Arti P. Jani situated at 3/8, Metal shipping centre, Malad (W), Mumbai named as M/s. Pradanaya Engineering (herein after referred to as Pradanay for short).1.5 These three concerns were engaged in the manufacture of Motor vehicle Parts. While Pep was Registered with Central Excise D...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner (A) Customs Mumbai. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that the demand for Rs. 7493.258/- is time barred.2. Briefly the facts as brought out in the appeal memorandum are as follows:- "A Contract of the Respondent was registered in the Contract Cell under Project Import Regulations, 1986, on 8.11.1993. On completion of imports, the importer submitted a Reconciliation Statement and accordingly project contract was finalized. At the time of registration, 2% Revenue Deposit was ordered to be recovered on account of importer's agreement with foreign supplier for payment of Royalty, Licence know-how fees; which was accepted by the importer (Respondent). However in respect of 3Bs/E, 2% revenue deposit was inadvertently not recovered, therefore, the same was proposed to be recovered from the respondent, who in turn requested to adjust the same from the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- paid by them as Cash Security Deposit. Acco...

Alembic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant, manufacture goods falling under Chapter 29. The dispute relates to eligibility to Notification No. 8/96-CE dt. 23.7.96 to Roxythromycin cleared during September 1996 - December 1996 and Nimesulide cleared during September 1996 -December 1997. Exemption under the said Notifications is available to goods falling under the above chapter if they are mentioned in Indian Pharmacopoeia or Pharmacopoeia of any other Country. Duty was demanded and penalty imposed as the appellants cleared the said goods availing of the exemption invoking larger period of limitation.3. In regard to Roxythromycin appellants contention is that the product is specified in the third edition of European Pharmacopoeia published in June 1996, which replaced the earlier IInd edition w.e.f. 1.1.1997.According to them Roxythromycin should be taken to have been included in pharmacopoeia form June 1996 and is therefore eligible for the benefit of exemption. In regard to invocation of extended period it wa...

Dynamic Twisters (P) Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants M/s Dynamic Twister P. Ltd are an assessee engaged in the manufacture of Texturised Polyester Filament Yarn wholly exempted from Central Excise duty. It become dutiable with effect from 1.3.1994 on that date notification 34/94 was issued exempting Texturised Polyester Filament Yarn made out of Non-Texturised Yarn imported under Duty Exemption Scheme meant for Exports. The present dispute in this Appeal is with regard to the Exemption under notification No. 34/94 to avail the above exemption, various Merchant Exporters of Fabrics who were using Texturised Polyester Filament Yam meant for export approached the assessee as well as Superintendent of Central Excise who had jurisdiction over the appellants factory. Such traders were exempted from obtaining registration under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 however, by virtue of Notification No. 27/92-CE(NT) dated 9.10.1992. Such Merchant Exporters who intend to get the jobwork of texturising done from the assessee o...

Bharat Metal Decorators Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT397Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 The appellants are engaged in the business of printing metal backed advertisement material /posters commonly known as Danglers, placed at point of Sales, for Customers information /advertisement of the products Brands etc; the entities have calendars, religious motifs also printed in different languages. The process carried out are metal sheets procured are cut, to size in their premises and then are sent for printing to various job workers. The normal size is 1ft * 1/2 ft, but it varies depending on customer requirement. After the sheets are received from the printers they carry out, the following process. iv) Hand pressed and punched for fixing, as required in some case, date /calendar on a hand press.They claim that printing of the matter on such sheets hung in various shops /points of sale is not merely incidental to the primary use, but it has a dominant primary role of advertising and thus claim classification under heading 4901.99 based on chapter note 5 of the HSN specific...

Bcl Springs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT56Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 97,02,179/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad. The case of the department is that Modvat credit of the above mentioned amount is not admissible to the applicants herein on inputs, viz. wire received by them from their suppliers, on the ground that the manufacturers of wire drawn from wire rod were not required to pay duty on the drawn wire.3. We find that when the matter had come up earlier, it was argued that irrespective of the legal position regarding the activity of drawing of wire from wire rods amounting to manufacture, the factual position was that the supplier to the applicants had paid duty on the drawn wire and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the applicants', availing credit of duty paid by the supplier of the inputs, viz. drawn wire. The Bench had directed the learned DR to obtain a report as to whether the supplier of inputs had obtained an...

Sterlite Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide Order No. A/101/WZB/04-CII dated 22.4.04 the issues in this appeal were referred to the Larger Bench to resolve a dispute in the views between the decisions in the case of Jindal Polymer 2001 (43) RLT 680 following Bajaj Tempo and Alfa Lavan 2001 (132) ELT 763 and the Larger Bench vide Order No. A/1787/WZB/2004/CI dated 25.10.2004 answered the questions in favour of the assessee and sent the matter back to this Bench to issue the final order.2. Since the benefit of the decisions as per the Larger Bench is to flow to the appellants follow and there is no other issue herein, this appeal is here to be the same allowed with directions to grant the benefit to the assessee in terms of Larger Bench decision. Appeal allowed in above terms....

Pennar Industries Ltd. and Mr. Ch. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering the issues involved, this appeal is being disposed off after waiver of pre deposit, as the plea made in the appeal and the issues involved & prayers made are lying in a narrow compass.2. The appellants herein, M/s Pennar Industries Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'PIL'), imported hot rolled ncn alloy steel wide coils against an Advance Licence issued under the DEEC Scheme. The quantity of such import was 2018.6 MTs. The imports were made on 3.3.1999 and 12.4.1999 and the goods were taken to their Isnapur Unit and there they were entered in the relevant raw material register. The imports were made under Notification 30/97 as amended on 1.4.1997 which allows actual users to import raw materials duty free to be converted into specified finished products and exported as per export obligations given in the advance licences. They were therefore to effect export of 1000 MTs cold rolled "non alloy steel (hard) coils and 1500 MTs of CRCA skin bas...

Ankit International, Devanti Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT472Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arose out of the order No. 53/2004 dated 17/06/2004 of the Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Mumbai. In the impugned order the Commissioner demanded duty of Rs. 9,89,012/- from M/s Ankit International under Section 28 imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 114A, duty of Rs. 10,07,258/- from M/s Devanti Overseas with an equal amount of penalty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on one Mr. Nilesh V. Joshi. The last named is the proprietor of the above mentioned firms who imported the offending goods. The Commissioner also confiscated the goods imported by the two firms and imposed appropriate redemption fines. Hence, these appeals.2. The offending goods are bearings. The above mentioned firms filed Bills of Entry to clear the goods claiming exemption under Notification No. 149/95 dated 19/09/95 as amended. Investigations by DRI Officers revealed that the advance licence produced for claiming duty free clearance under the above said Notification was a duplic...