Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Rajesh Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Rajesh Industries manufactured Flywheels for Diesel Oil Engines during the material time. The material required for such manufacture was supplied by another unit M/s. Lalkrupa Castings. Once the flywheels are manufactured they were sold to Diesel Oil Engine manufacturers by M/s. Lalkrupa Castings to whom the flywheels were returned by M/s.Rajesh Industries. The latter did not have a Central Excise registration nor did it file any declaration in respect of goods manufactured in the unit. Invoking the extended period, Rs. 1,70,087.27 was demanded, towards duty on the manufactured goods an equal amount of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the unit under Rule 173Q and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the partner of M/s. Lalkrupa Castings. In appeal the Commissioner confirmed the order of the lower authority.Hence this appeal.3. The period of dispute is April, 1992 to March, 1993. The evidence as brought out in the Order-in-Original suggests that the appellant unit was manufacturi...

C.J. Gelatine Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 Appellant was served with a Notice proposing to recover duty on goods (Gelatin Capsules) cleared by them after reprocessing during the period 1.3.1997 to 20.1.1998 on the grounds that no reprocessing under Rule 173H was conducted but it was a case of replaced goods cleared as the process allegedly of reprocessing conducted amounted to manufacture.1.2 The demands of duty were confirmed and penalty imposed under Rule 173Q. CCE (A) in appeal found: "I observe that the duty paid goods received by the appellants, have undergone several process such as blending, mixing, repacking, etc. Appellants in their statement recorded under Section 14 of CEA 1944 before the Central Excise authorities have admitted that if there is a problem of viscosity or so contents then they add some other gelatine and reblend the whole material to get required specifications, if the complain is about moisture contents, then the Heat treatment is required and carried out. To remove the bacterial contamination m...

Manmohan Gupta and Actis Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT907Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 Appellant has filed this Appeal against in Original no CAO. CC(YGP) 18/2004 Adj dtd 23 June 2004, issued under F. No: SIIB/GEN-38/2002 ACC, passed by the commissioner of customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner) where in the commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty thousand only) on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the customs Act, 1962 & has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 57,98,140/- against General engineering & Spares (Presently known as ACTIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD) wherein the appellant was the partner of the erstwhile partnership firm which was finally converted into a Private Ltd Company under the new name and style wherein the appellant is a Director. Also a mandatory penalty of the equivalent amount of Rs. 57,98,140/- on the said erstwhile partnership firm, under Section 114A of the Act has been imposed and has directed payment of interest by the said firm on the above ...

Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The benefit of concessional rate of duty of 40% in terms of notification 77/90 has been disallowed to the appellants herein on imported refractory bricks of special shape for use as replacements in industrial furnaces for making of steel. The ground for denial is that the refractory bricks are not component parts of industrial furnaces which is what is covered under the notification, but are spares for subsequent replacements.2. We have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the larger bench decision in the case of Jindal Strips Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai 1997 (94) ELT 234 which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in in the case of Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd v. CCE, Calcutta. Following the ratio of the above judgments, we extend the benefit of the notification to the goods in question, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals. Consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants in accordance with law....

Sunbel Alloys Company of India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are aggrieved by the denial of Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices by applying the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.2. It is on record that differential duty was paid by the supplier of the goods, on his own voluntarily, on pointing out the same by the Department. The lower authority found that the supplier had indulged in misdeclaration. The reason for short payment was an interpretation difference on valuation. The receivers of the inputs contested the matter before the authorities especially the fact that there was complete absence of any notice having been issued to the supplier, by their jurisdictional officers, was totally ignored. The conclusion that the credit was barred by Rule 7(1)(b) are based on a presumption. The same, in absence of a finding upheld against the supplier of misstatement/misdeclaration etc., cannot be upheld at by the receivers jurisdictional officer's end. The reliance placed by the ld. Advocate on the decision of Pol...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.2. The facts in brief are that M/s. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co. were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. Bi-metal contacts falling under Chapter Heading 85.38. On investigation pursuant to the intelligence that M/s. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co. were evading Central Excise duty by effecting clearance of "Bi-Metal contact" on delivery challans of trading firms, it was found that M/s. Sterling Electricals Mfg. Co. manufactured and removed Bi-Metal contacts clandestinely without accounting for the production/removal in statutory records and without payment of Central Excise duty.Therefore, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.1999 was issued demanding the duty and proposing penalty and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and confiscation of the goods.3. On adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, confirmed the duty and al...

Engineering Products and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT429Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. In this case the appellants have utilized Modvat credit in respect of duty paid goods received back for repair and reconditioning which were cleared on payment of duty. The Original Authority had allowed the credit to the appellants but the Lower Appellate Authority has reversed the order on Department's appeal. The learned D.R. has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Gears Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-III - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 668 (Tribunal) and Collector of C.E., Bombay-I v. Sigma Paints Ltd. -1994 (69) E.L.T. 779 (Tribunal) in support of the Department's case whereas the learned Advocate has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Hirsch Watch Straps Pvt. Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal) in support of the appellant's case. I find that these decisions are contradictory. In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the Original Authority has rightly allowed the duty credit and has imposed no penalty co...

Silson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are an assessee who manufacture and supply Boilers and parts of Boilers and parts of soot blowers used in repairs and maintenance of Boiler. They had paid duty on boilers cleared in knocked down condition and in some case, certain accessories were directly supplied as bought out items at site. Value of such bought out items at site was not added. Similarly no duty was paid on erection and commissioning charges of boilers. When such boilers were cleared in knocked down condition. On parts claimed duty was paid and assessee availed Modvat credit on inputs.2.1 (a) Revenue, by issue of a notice dt. 22-6-94 demanded duty on Value of parts supplied directly to site and erection and commissioning charges.2.2 CCE (Appeals) remanded the issue as regard Modvat charge to the Additional Commissioner and confirmed the duty demands on the grounds that no evidence was shown that Boilers had emerged as immovable property without arriving at a finding, on the valuation charges in the not...

Ghcl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is admissibility of modvat credit on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of the machinery and pipe lines. The learned advocate for the appellants has cited the following decisions in support of the appellant's claim that credit is available to welding electrodes:- 1) C C E Meerut v. U P State Sugar Corporation - 2002 (147) ELT 983 (Tri.Del.)Manikgarh Cement v. C C E Nagpur- 2003 (159) ELT 1120 (Tri.-Mumbai) 2. I find that the decisions at 1 & 2 above relate to welding electrodes, the first one has been passed by a single Member Bench whereas the second one has been passed by a division Bench relying on the Larger Bench decision in the case of C C E v. Modi Rubber Ltd. - 2000 (119) ELT 197 (Tribunal). I find that the decision in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd (supra) relates to lubricating oil and greases used in the machinery for production of cement. On other other hand, the learned D R has relied on subsequent decision of Large...

B.E.S.T. Undertaking Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR272; [2005]142STC199(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. On request of the applicant, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has made this reference to this Court for adjudication on the following questions of law.'(a) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the 'dealer' under Section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was dealer under the Act ?(b) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the term 'business' as given in Section 2(5A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 during the material period, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was carrying on the business ?(c) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was for the applicant to prove that there was no profit-motive in the activity conducted by it qua its rendering ser...