Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Cosme Remedies Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR156; 2008(229)ELT213(Bom)

Parkar S.S., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Shri Vaz appearing for the Respondents waives service. By consent Petitions are heard finally.2. All these petitions seek to challenge the common Order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai against the Petitioners in the four petitions. All the petitions raise the common question about the pre-deposit to be made by them as the condition for hearing of their appeals filed before the Tribunal against the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise on show cause notices issued for payment of excise duty by the petitioners and therefore these petitions are disposed of by this common order.3. It is not in dispute that initially the Department had recovered a sum of Rs. 3,65,77,688.00 from the job workers as manufacturers of medicinal products towards excise duty. Later on the Department issued show cause notices to the petitioners to pay the amount of excise duty...

Cona Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 Considering that the matter of manufacture with / without aid of power is covered by the Boards instructions the appeals were ordered to kept for hearing on 24.5.2005, after waiver of pre-deposit, when the stay application came up on 20.5.2005.1.2 After hearing both sides in detail on 24.5.05, considering the matter it is found a) i) appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electrical Switches, plugs sockets for electrical items, telephone, TVs etc falling under heading 85.36, 85.17 & 85.29 of the Central Excise Tariff. ii) The main unit is at Gala No. 10 to 13, Gandhi Industrial Estate; Safad Pool, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-72. They have manufacturing units at 17 other locations in Mumbai, out of which only at five units full fledged manufacturing activity takes place and only three out of these five manufacturers ISI specification materials, the other two being non-ISI mark units. The other 12 units are engaged in part processing, assembly for the ISI mark units exclusi...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dimple Overseas and Shri V.K.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC97

1.1 Commissioner Customs, Kandla, has filed the appeals, against order dtd 16.8.2000, purportedly based on order no 27R/2001 dtd 23.1.01 of Central Board of Excise & Customs New Delhi. The respondent are M/s.Dimple Overseas Ltd (now known as M/s ABH International & hereinafter referred to as M/s. DOL for short and S K Gandhi (now Mg. Director of M/s ABH International).1.2 Before proceeding to the issues raised vide notice issued on 30/12/97 and which resulted in the impugned order dtd 16.8.2000, it is necessary to recapitulate the background and the circumstances under which this notice dtd 30.12.97 came to be issued. The Commissioner in CA-5 application records, we reproduce verbatim, the same - M/s Dimple Overseas Ltd, New Delhi (M/s DOL) has filed 10 shipping bills for the export of Polyethylene Newar/Straps to U.A.E. based firm viz. M/s. International Textiles Company, Ajmhn, U.A.E. under Value based Advance Licenses in January 1993. The quantity mentioned in each of these...

Business Combines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT67Tri(Mum.)bai

1. (a) In appeal No. 2718, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of SG Iron Castings etc. and is availing the credit of duty paid on inputs, amongst other things have declared off cuts of M.S. Sheets (Melting scrap) Ferrous waste & scrap (remitting) scrap of alloy steel; other Ferrous scrap; waste & scrap of steel; on various dates vide declarations filed as prescribed under the rules - (b) Such scrap, is the principal raw material. Since the scrap received and its chemical composition is of great importance, each lot received is tested by a spectrometer. (c) Based on certain information, the Preventive officers started an enquiry; recorded statements of employees, dealers who had supplied the scrap and a show cause notice was issued, alleging for the period October 1996 to March 2001 that - (i) Assessee had availed credit an inputs viz. H.R. Trimmings M.S. Scrap, ferrous waste & scrap, off cuts of M.S. Sheets etc. even though the same could not be used as input in t...

Unity Industries, Sonic, Sotex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal relates to clubbing and clandestine removal. The clubbing is proposed in the case of following four units: (i) M/s Sotex - a proprietary unit of Shri M M Majithia, constituted in 1991 and registered as SSI unit by District Industries Central since 1991; (ii) M/s Unity, a partnership concern of Shri V V Rajani and Shri Shantilal Somani. Constituted in 1988 and registered as SSI unit by District Industries Centre in 1988; (iii) M/s Sonic, a proprietary unit of Mrs Anilaben Majithia, wife of Shri M M Majithia, constituted in 1989 and exempt from licensing; (iv) M/s Stelex came into being as a proprietary concern of Shri M M Majithia in Sept 1993. It was sold to Krishna Textile Works who used the same till Shri Majithia took over the same on monthly basis from 1.7.1997 to 31.10.1997.2. The period of demand is 1993-94 to October 1997 amounting to Rs. 1,45,29,754/- A mandatory penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on M/s Sotex under Rule ...

Rama Newsprint and Papers Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of newsprint classified under Chapter heading 48.01 and writing and printing paper classified under Chapter heading 48.02. The present dispute relates to clearances of consignments of newsprint. The contention of the department is that the appellants have cleared 41,499 kgs. of newsprint illicitly, evading payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 1,90,895/-. The allegation is based on the evidence that at the time of clearance, the consignments were weighed on the weight bridge situated in the factory which had shown a weight more than the one shown on the various gate passes under which the consignments were cleared. There is no dispute that these consignments on which weight difference occurred was also cleared to the newspaper publishers. The notification in this regard prescribes that it newsprint is cleared to newspaper publishers, they attract nil rate of duty. The contention that the newsprint in question is illicitly removed appears t...

Hindustan Structurals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved is as to whether the appellants, who are manufacturing two different products, are entitled to the SSI exemption in respect of the second product up to clearance of Rs. 10.00 lakhs, even though the total clearance of both products have exceeded Rs. 30.00 lakhs.2. The revenue has relied upon the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ramakrishna Engineering Works holding that once the overall clearances exceeded Rs. 30.00 lakhs irrespective of the clearances of one item being less than Rs. 10.00 lakhs, the exemption would not be available. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was taken note of by the Tribunal in the case of Solar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot reported in 1999 (82) ECR 606 (Tribunal). In the said decision, it was observed that the Larger Bench' decision in the case of Ramakrishna Engineering Works is no longer a good law, inasmuch as the ap...

Marque Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exp.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT459Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the rate of drawback in respect of exports made by the appellants.2. As per the facts on records, the appellants filed six shipping bills all dated 9-8-1999 for the export of "Handicraft of Brass Artware" with glass and wood fittings claiming duty drawback under Serial No.74.20(i) @ Rs. 6/- per kg. However, the revenue authorities on examination found that the consignment was of simple glass mirror backed with wooden pad and framed in simple brass frame. The goods were brass artware and properly fall under Serial No. 74.19(d) attracting Rs. 26/- per kg. as drawback. However, the consignment was allowed to be exported provisionally.3. The dispute was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his impugned order and by applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Louis Shoppe, he held that the goods exported could not be considered as handicrafts so as to allo the higher drawba...

Shri Ganesh Enterprise Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the three appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner vide which he has confiscated the foreign origin goods, with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. In addition, he has also imposed penalties upon the appellants.2. I have heard Shri Z.B. Nagarkar ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri N.V.B. Nair, ld. JDR appearing for the revenue.3. On 21-8-2003, Customs Officers intercepted one Tempo belonging to the transport company and carrying goods of foreign origin, viz., Car stereos, Car amplifiers, Speakers for Car stereos, Toner Cartridges of Printers, Mobile Phones, Computer aided game sets, Integrated Circuits (ICs), etc. Representative of the transport company stated that the goods were being transported on behalf of various persons. Immediately thereafter, the three appellants herein claimed the ownership of the part of the goods and submitted that ...

Hardcastle and Waud Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant, M/s Hardcastle & Waud Mfg. Co Ltd., is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of lubricating preparation, paints, varnishes etc. and for the said purpose has a factory at Netivali, Kalyan.2. The present appeal involves the determination of the question of classification of three products manufactured by the appellant, which are marketed as Rustolene, Hawco CG-3 and Hawco Asbestos Jointings. The appellants filed classification list No.1/91-92 w.e.f. 30.07.1991, wherein they classified their products Hawco CG-3 and Rustolene under CSH 2710.99 claiming exemption vide Notification No.120/84-CE dated 11.05.1984 as amended. The adjudicating authority vide Order dated 25.10.1991 classified those produces under CHS 2710.99 @ 15% advance basis vide Notification No.287/86 dated 5.5.1986 as amended since both the products are neither motor spirit used as fuel in spark ignition engines nor they are lubricating o...