Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(192)ELT1088Tri(Mum.)bai
1.1 Appellant are an assessee under the Central Excise Act engaged in the manufacture of diverse parts of "Car-Conditioning Machine" other than a compressor. They import compressors from abroad and trade in them by supplying the compressors to the buyer of the manufactured entities.1.2 During the disputed period, the customer are M/s. Tata Motors & Mahindra & Mahindra, who after obtaining the entities use the same in the assembly line of manufacture of the automobiles subsequently cleared by them an payment of duty. Some small quantity of these goods was supplied to M/s. Tata Motors Spares Divisions for resale in after sale service market.1.3 They since 1998, the commencement of the manufacture to their factory, were getting orders for the individual parts described on the purchase orders with delivery Schedules for individual entities given/determined by the customers.1.4 The assessee had claimed exemption under notification No.22/2000-C.E., dated 6-3-2000 as available to par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)(93)ELT78Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed by the Department and the Respondents assessee respectively against the captioned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay, holding that the paper on which the caption Cadbury's Dairy Milk is printed is classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 4818.12 or 4818.13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, depending upon the constitution.2. It is the case of the Department that the product comes within Tariff Heading 4818.90 and not under sub-heading 4818.12 or 4818.13 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is the case of assessee respondent that the product in question should be classified under sub-heading 4901.90 as according to them, it does not come under sub-heading 4818.12 or 4818.13 as was held by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The facts of the case are as follows : The assessee respondent are the manufactures of various types of articles of paper namely labels, dairies, folders, wrappers, covers etc. A classifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT441Tri(Mum.)bai
1. With the consent of both sides, appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty demanded.2. Appellant was running a factory where it manufactures articles of lead. It is stated that these articles were manufactured out of lead scrap purchased by the appellant from the open market, or imported.Such scrap was first melted and refined in order to remove the metallic and non-metallic impurities found in it. Skimming dross and other residues obtained during these processes were stored by the appellant in its factory, and used, whenever its furnace was free in order to recover a small proportion of metal present in them. The appellant shut down its factory in April, 1993, but it appears did not dispose of the stock of residues which it had on that date. In September, 1993 the Central Excise officers visited the factory, drew samples of these goods and tested them. The test reports which were communicated to the assessee in August, 1994, described the goods as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(129)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals involve common facts and are therefore being dealt with in this single order.2. M/s. ICPA Health Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "the assessees") manufactured "moyzen liquid" claiming classification thereof under heading 3303 and also claiming the benefit of Notification 167/86-C.E. which exempted products falling under certain tariff heading alone from payment of duty when manufactured without the aid of power. Three show cause notices were issued on 27-2-1998, 24-8-1998 and 24-11-1998 covering the period November, 1997 to September, 1998 alleging that the classification warranted was under Heading 3304 and alleging short levy of duty totally amounting to Rs. 2,98,292.15 on that ground. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the allegations, confirmed the duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessees' contention that the goods were toilet water, set aside the lower order and allowed the appeal. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. A case was made out against the Respondents (herein after regards to as Austin for brevity sake). Austins factory was visited on 1.10.96 and enquires were conducted by the officers which resulted in a show cause notice dated 20.3.97 calling Austin to show cause seeking as to why -- a) 27739 No. of bearings of different marks and numbers valued at Rs. 66,44, 104/- seized from the said unit on 1.10.96 should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; b) they should produce the above referred goods for confiscation within one month failing which why the security furnished should not be forfeited; c) 4880 No. of bearings valued at Rs. 75,074/- which were found in excess than the recorded stock in RG-1 and seized on 11.10.1996 should not be confiscated under Rules, 1944; d) Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,21,94,699/- on removal of 9,91,746 Pes of bearings valued at Rs. 11,74,36,058/- and Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,99,919/- in respect of the 27137 no of bearings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)(109)ECC77
1. This is a stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 57,28,737/- (Rs. Fifty Seven Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Seven Only) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section 11AC on the appellants and penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Shri Viren A. Merchant, Director, Rs. 4 Lakhs on Shri Sudhir A. Merchant, Director and Rs. 1 Lakh on Shri Ajitkumar G. Merchant, Director.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs. The appellants as per their say were not making profit and therefore, in the year 1995-96 they received an offer from M/s CHT India Pvt. Ltd. to manufacture and supply various Textiles Auxiliary Chemicals and finishing Agents, as per their specifications and quality standards and under their brand name, for exclusive sale to them. M/s CHT India, during relevant period was a joint venture company formed by CHT Germany and Merchant group. Since appellants were ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(89)LC88Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these two Appeals filed by M/s. Ebers Pharmaceuticals Ltd. arising out of a common order in Appeal dated 29.12.1992, the issue involved is whether the value of the goods manufactured by and cleared by other units are to be included in the value of clearances of goods by the Loan Licensee for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufacture P or P medicaments. They also get the medicaments manufactured out of raw material supplied by them from M/s. Schefata Pharmaceuticals and Development Laboratories and M/s. Gan Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Schefata and Gan) on loan licence basis.The Assistant Collectors under two Adjudication orders dated 19.6.1992 and 28.7.1992 denied them the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE dt.1.3.1986 and confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty, holding that the value of clearances of branded goods by M/s. Schefata and M/s. Gan are to be clubbed with the value of clearanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(26)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals arise out of the Order-in-Appeal bearing Nos. 2452/79 to 2463/79, dated 28-12-1979 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be stated as under: The appellants are the manufacturer of P or P Medicines falling under Tariff Item 14-E of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the period from June, 1974 to December, 1974 the appellants received back in their factory certain quantities of their products for the purposes of re-processing. After re-processing they cleared the goods on payment of Central Excise duty. Subsequently, the appellants claimed refund of duty originally paid in respect of the goods which were brought to their factory for re-processing and which were subsequently cleared on payment of duty. In all they made 12 claims. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by 12 separate orders disallowed portion of their claims hol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)LC999Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Aarem Enterprises, one of the two respondents to the appeals filed by the Commissioner, is engaged in the manufacture of a stationary bicycle. It affixed on the cross bar of this bicycle the only brand name "Slimmer". The entire production of these machines is marketed by United Teleshopping, a teleshopping network, the advertisements for the product being made over the teleshopping network. The representative of these teleshopping network inspects each machine in the presence of the appellant, and if satisfied with the quality places a sticker on it.The sticker bears upon it the logo of this marketing firm, comprising the letters UTS in a distinctive style along with the letters TSN and the word "checked" followed by serial number.2. Notices issued to the manufacturer and United Teleshopping marketing alleged non payment of duty on goods that it manufacturers and cleared and proposed penalty on the manufacturer and the marketing company. The manufacturer in reply accepted that dut...
Tag this Judgment!