Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(103)ECC257
1.1 Appellants are aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner, who has confirmed a demand of duty and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, confiscated the goods seized and imposed a fine in lieu of confiscation, and directed enforcement of B-8 Bond.1.2 The appellants are manufacturers of various types of toothpaste and dental cleaners bearing brand name and trade name of their customers for example Close up Red, Close up Blue, Close up Green, Close up Whitening and Pepsodent, Signal, Aim etc falling under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for which they hold a proper registration and were discharging duty on 'toothpaste' and 'other dental cleaners' cleared by them. They also availed benefit of Modvat credit. Before effecting the manufacture and clearance of any of their goods, they obtain appropriate registration with the Food and Drug Control authorities as required for 'toothpaste', they submit detailed manufacturi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Appellants are aggrieved by and order of the Commissioner, who has confirmed a demand of duty and imposed and equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, confiscated the goods seized and imposed a fine in lieu of confiscation, and directed enforcement of B-8 Bond.1.2 The appellants are manufacturers of various types of toothpaste and dental cleaners bearing brand name and trade name of their customers for example Close up Red, Close up Blue, Close up Green, Close up Whitening and Pepsodent, Signal, Aim etc. falling under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for which they hold a proper registration and were discharging duty on 'toothpaste' and 'other dental cleaners' cleared by them. They also availed benefit of Modvat credit. Before effecting the manufacture and clearance of any of their goods, they obtain appropriate registration with the Food and Drug Control authorities as required for 'toothpaste', they submit detailed manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The issue for determination in this case is as to what is the price to be adopted good captively consumed when sales of identical goods by the same assessee also take place. It is the contention of the appellant against the duty demand confirmed on the ground that the sale price to outside customer is to be adopted for captive consumption also, that under Central Excise (Valuation) Rules viz. Rule 6, certain adjustments are permissible. In their case, they submit that adjustments are required to be given because the price is inclusive of payment of commission of Rs. 3142.95 and, therefore, they submit that the price adopted of Rs. 49,000/- per kg which is the price at which they sold the goods during the period March 1992 to Torrent Pharmaceutical is not correct. Regarding the plea that the demand is barred by limitation, it is their submission that even though price lists for Torrent Phramaceuticals at Rs. 49,000/- per kg. of bulk drugs manufactured by them had been filed, they co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(140)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for determination in this case is as to what is the price to be adopted for goods captively consumed when sales of identical goods by the same assessee also take place. It is the contention of the appellant against the duty demand confirmed on the ground that the sale price to outside customer is to be adopted for captive consumption also, that under the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules viz. Rule 6, certain adjustments are permissible. In their case, they submit that adjustments are required to be given because the price is inclusive of payment of commission of Rs. 3142.95 and, therefore, they submit that the price adopted of Rs. 49,000/- per kg which is the price at which they sold the goods during the period March 1992 to Torrent Pharmaceuticals is not correct. Regarding the plea that the demand is barred by limitation, it is their submission that even though price lists for Torrent Pharmaceuticals at Rs. 49,000/- per kg. of bulk drugs manufactured by them had been file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)(15)LC92Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the present application filed in terms of Section 828 of the Gold (Control) Act, the applicant requires this Tribunal to refer to the following points to the Hon'ble High Court for clarification :- (1) Whether the evidence of seizure of gold as provided in the pancha- nama can be accepted when the panchas did not support' the panchnama. (2) Whether the statement of the applicant Shri Raman Mangal Patel recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be treated as voluntary when it was actually obtained under duress and force after beating him. (3) Whether the applicant's statement regarding 200 metallic yarn being stored in the motor vehicle can be treated as a confession of his knowledge when the gold bars were hidden in the car and whether the statement would justify the penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act.2. On behalf of the applicant, Shri Bhatt briefly narrated the facts of the case leading to the apprehension of the motor car in which the applicant w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)LC330Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture glass and glassware falling under Chapter 70 of the C.E.T., 1985. They were filing the price list in respect of the goods. The department initiated proceedings against the appellants because the department found that the appellants had gradually transferred the expenditure on sales promotion and publicity of their product 'Yera Ware' to M/s. Darshak Ltd., as evident from the expenses incurred towards sales promotion and publicity by both the companies from 1986 onwards which were as follows:----------------------------------------------------------------"Year M/s. Alembic M/s. Darshak---------------------------------------------------------------1986 Rs. 18,91,192/- Rs. 1,91,928/-1987 Rs. 16,192/- Rs. 2,25,945/-1988-89(1-1-1988 to 31-3-1989) - Rs. 43,81,732/---------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Shri R.S. Parikh, Factory Manager of M/s. Darshak gave a statement on 17-4-1990 saying that Darshak were engaged in the printing/deco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(174)ELT210Tri(Mum.)bai
M/S WARREN LABORATORIES Pvt. Ltd. Tarapur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") manufacture the following three products: (i) Rexidin, (ii) Remedin & (iii) Dentogel.1. The short point to be decided is whether the above products are classifiable as P or P medicaments under chapter Sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as contended by the appellants or under chapter Sub-heading 3306.90 as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order in appeal.2. The appellants were classifying the above products under chapter Sub-heading 3003.10 which was accepted by the department. However three show cause notices were issued in the year 1996 proposing to classify the goods as "Preparation for oral or dental hygiene" falling under chapter Sub-heading 3306.00 and chargeable to Central Excise duty @ 20% advance as BED. The rate of duty under classification 3003.10 was only 15%. The adjudicating authority after making a thorough study of the issue and the also submis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(180)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Shree Dhootapapeshwar Ltd. is manufacturer of excisable products failing under No. SH No. 3003.39 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.A team of the officers of headquarter preventive wing of Mumbai-VII Commissionerate visited the said unit on 19.01.2002 for conducting antievasion checks.2. On scrutiny of the production challan/voucher, it was noticed that the assessee has not accounted for the production in their RG-1 register. The assessee intended to evade Central Excise Duty, have clandestinely removed the finished goods from the factory without accounting for the same in their statutory records. i) why the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 29,291/-, as recovered Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the shortages of the finished goods; ii) the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,68,372/-, as detailed in Annexure-B, on the quantity of Swamala and Chyavanprash sent to Filling Department, but not accounted in the RG-1 register; iii) the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1.1 Appellants have a unit registered in Kandla Free Trade Zone (KAFTZ) where they procure imported and indigenous raw material and subject them to the following process - i) The unfilled bottles/godets/tubes/containers etc. are imported. The perfumes/deodorant /eau de toilette/Cream/make up mass etc to be filled in is separately imported in bulk quantity. Besides, various packing materials like pumps, actuators, collars, caps, individual cartons, liners, labels, etc, are all separately imported. Inner cartons, outer cartons, gum tape rolls strapping materials etc. are procured from Intra zone units and BOPP films and some labels are procured from indigenous suppliers. ii) All the imported materials are tested and checked with the master samples maintained at the factory and their conformation to strict quality requirements is ensured. iii) The bottles/godets/tubes/containers etc are filled in the factory and in case of bottles the fitment of pumps, actuators and collars, is carried o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Sahab Singh These are two appeals. First appeal No. E/359/10 is filed by M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) against the Order-in-Original No. 03-04/SR (03 to 04)COMMR/RGD/ 09-10 dated 08.12.2009 and second appeal No. E/369/11 is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/844/RGD/2010 dated 8.12.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For payment of the Central Excise duty, they are availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the scrutiny of ER-1 returns filed by the appellants with the Range Superintendent, it was observed that the appellants had manufactured Zinc Dross slabs/ingots and cleared the same without payment of duty. It was further observed from the scrutiny of the invoices under cover of which Zinc Dross slabs/ingots in question ...
Tag this Judgment!