Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Polyset Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

3. The respondents have cleared the capital goods under Rule 57S(I)(ii) on payment of duty equivalent to credit availed after deducting 2.5% of credit taken for each quarter of a year of the use in respect of paying duty prevalent at the rate of 13% at the time of clearance and then added to 2.5% per quarter of use of such capital goods and hence paid less duty amount of Rs. 4,30,086/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Thousand Eighty six only) on the removal of capital goods, under the aforesaid Rule. After noticing the same, Department had issued Show-Cause-Notice to the appellants which was later confirmed by Joint Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Panaji - Goa, and also imposed penalty of equivalent amount of duty. The appellants have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who in turn set aside the Order in-Original and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the same revenue is in appeal.CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. . The respondent counsel also ...

S.S. Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC377

1. The above appeals arise out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, involving common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. In both cases, duty demands have been confirmed on parts and accessories for sugar plant, such as cane unloader, feeder table, juice heater, juice clarifier, vacuum filters, evaporators etc., manufactured by the appellants herein at the site of M/s. Rajarambapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (subject matter of appeal No. E/965/06) and M/s. Mohanrao Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (subject matter of appeal No. E/966/06) and penalties have been imposed for clearance of the above, during the period in dispute without payment of duty. The claim of the assessees that the items in question were not excisable goods as well as the alternate claim that if such goods are excisable, they are eligible to the benefit of exemption to captive consumption in terms of Notification 67/95 has been rejected. The extended...