Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

R.K. Chawla and anr. Vs. Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)62; II(2007)BC111; 2006CriLJ193

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. The Applicants are the Original Accused, The Applicants are challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No. 35 of 2000 whereby the Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the criminal complaint and decide the application of condonation first and thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present Criminal Revision Application are as under:The Respondent No. 1 is the Original Complainant which is a Government Enterprise engaged in the business of manufacturing Antibiotics and Pharmaceutical items. The Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the present Applicants and are the Directors of Accused No. 3 which is a Private Limited Company having registered office at New Delhi. It was alleged by the Complainants that various orders were placed by the Accused by various invoices. It was for the p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sunil Paints and Varnishes

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai

2. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the small scale exemption to the respondents. The lower appellate authority has considered the fact that the respondents used their brand name "MORSUN" on their product. In addition, they have also printed in small letters "made with technical assistance of MORTON". MORTON is not the brand name for the product manufactured by the respondents nor it is a brand name of the foreign company who merely manufactured one of the in- gredients used in the product made by the respondents. We are also find that MORTON is merely the name of the foreign supplier and the ingredients supplied by them is marketed with the brand name "ELP". We are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) had come to the right conclusion that the respondents have not used the brand name of any other company and has rightly allowed the small scale exemption to the respondents. As such, the same does not require any i...

R.i. Gandhi, Jayesh Silk Mills, Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the stay petitions are being disposed of together as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the authorities below, one which they have confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 9,07,747/- against the first applicant M/s. Suryanarayan Silk Mills Pvt Ltd., along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount and penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on Shri R.I. Gandhi, who is the director of M/s Suryanarayan Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. In respect of M/s. Jayesh Silk Mills, demand of duty of Rs. 5,04.205/- has been confirmed along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. Similarly, the authorities have confirmed the amount of Rs. 8,36,212/- against M/s. Sunday Exports Ltd., along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. in addition, persona! penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs has been imposed on Shri R.I. Gandhi, Director of the said firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. The three appellants, M/s. Suryanarayan Silk Mills Pvt Ltd. Jayesh Silk Mills an...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT365Tri(Mum.)bai

(a) Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), vide an order dated 16-3-2001, granted refund on an appeal preferred by the Respondents herein. (b) Refund amounts were paid. However, the claim on payment of interest under Section 11BB was rejected. The Respondents filed an appeal. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) ordered the payment of interest, vide order dated 22-6-2001. (c) Revenue filed this appeal, now before us, against order dated 22-6-2001, raising the contentions - (i) Issue on merits causing this refund is pending before the Larger Bench in this very case of Respondents. (j) If interest is paid, then it could not be recovered, as there was no provision for recovery of erroneous refund. (d) The issue, both sides agree, on merits is settled in assessees' favour and the Apex Court has rejected Revenue's S.L.P. filed. Ld. DR raises an interesting question of ethics of payment of interest when the delay was caused due to uncertainty of the issue on merits which was determin...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Intricast Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner (A) Central Excise Rajkot. The Commissioner set aside the order of the lower authority who rejected the claim for refund of Modvat credit earlier reversed by the respondent at the instance of the officers. The Commissioner set aside the order of the lower authority and held that the assessee is not entitled to any cash refund.2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the Commissioner's remarks quote "....Central Excise law does not permit any room for obviating the requirement of adjudication even if payment is made in a voluntary manner".3. It so happened that the respondent reversed Modvat credit taken by him at the instance of the Central Excise Officers. He found that no further action has been initiated against him in so far as the reversal of credit is concerned. He therefore applied for the refund/recredit of the Modvat credit reversed by him at the instance of the Officers. The lower authority denied the recredit on the ground that th...

Siemens Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Airport, Mumbai. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed the order-in-original denying refund of Rs. 83,859/-.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants imported Micromaster Vector Static Converter of assessable value of Rs. 3,33,697.54 and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance. It is found that as per invoice there are 7 items in the consignments. As per Bill of Entry however, 14 items were shown to have been imported. It is observed that while invoice value has been correctly shown in the Bill of Entry there is duplication of items which resulted in double payment of duty. The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid i.e. 83,859/-.The original authority admits that excess duty was paid but credited the refund, due to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the incidence of duty was passed on to the buyers. In appeal the Commissioner also held that no documents were produced by the app...

Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai

2. M/s. Sunflag Iron & Steel Limited are an integrated steel plant, inter alia engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. In their factory, the appellants manufacture sponge iron from the iron ore and manufacture downstream rolled products such as bars, rods, etc. There is no dispute on this factual position. Apart from using sponge iron manufacture in their factory from the ore, the appellants also buy sponge iron and waste and scrap of iron for manufacture of the rolled products. The appellants sell their final products from the factory gate. The appellants also stock transfer the final products to the depots/stock yards and sell the same from there.3. Prior to September, 1996, the duty payable on the goods stock transferred to depot was based on value at which the goods were sold at the factory gate. However, with the introduction of proviso (ia) to Section 4(1)(a) and with the introduction Clause (iii) to Section 4(4)(b) defining...

Freburz Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2.(a) Issue is classification of "JABKUSUM AYURVEDIC HAIR PACK". The assessee seeking it under Heading 3003.99 while Revenue placing it under 3305.99 during the period Oct. 1998 to Jan. 1999.(b) The entity is claimed to cure dandruff, hair fall as shown in the literature and is mentioned in Ayurvedic Text Books and is manufactured as per the procedure prescribed. The Asst. Collector orders are explicit on this aspect.(c) CCE (A) however following T. No. 333/49/97-CX., dated 10-9-1997 and Chapter note l(d) to Chapter 30 upheld classification under Chapter 33.(d) The Id. Advocate for the appellants relies on decision in case of CCE v. Arshik Herbal Remedies (India) - & Meghdoot Gramodyog Seva Sansthan - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) to submit that the product merits classification as a medicaments under Chapter 30.(e) A perusal of the Assistant Collector's order and considering the settled law, we cannot find any fault in AC's order & we therefore cannot uphold the CCE (A) order a...

D.P. Sanghvi and Swiss Apparels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Issue, in these appeals, is eligibility to the SSI notification No.8/02 which is denied on the grounds, that the assignment of Trade Mark effected was not registered with the Trade Mark authority, and it is facade of a transfer.3. (a) Keeping in mind the settled law on assignment of Trade Mark entitled to benefit, as held by catena of decisions of this Tribunal and the Supreme Court's decisions relied upon by the Ld Advocate viz para 3 of Primela Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (131) ELT 657 (upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005 (184) ELT 125 (SC) and also the decision in case of B.P. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (153) ELT 14 (SC) para 12 & 14, we find no reason to deny the benefit of the assignment deed on grounds of facade and non registration as being made out.(b) the Ld D.R., while pointing out his defense fairly admits, nothing contrary to the decisions to be shown by him but contends that the assignment deed is for garments which do not mention "Trousers". We fin...

Prime Poly Weave Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and finding, that the core issue in these appeals filed by 100% EOU's against similar order and dispute as regards the eligibility of the clearances made out of the EOU is of Polyster yarn & Gray fabric waste arising on the EOUs, to benefit of Notification 8/97 or 13/98 and 2/95 denied by the Commissioner, and only on E/3049/02 there is an additional charge of fabrics, the final product being found short and thus not accounted and duty demands made thereon, there appeals are being disposed by their common order. 2. (a) The learned Advocate submits that the denial to notification 8/97 or/and 13/98 without going into the details of whether the raw material from which the subject waste arose was India or imported. The claim is that it is Indian raw material, even in these cases where the same is received on transfer from other 100% EOU's. The Advocate submits that there receipts from other 100% EOU's have been considered as imported or made from imported m...