Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
2. The Department is in appeal aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai.3. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments. As they were in requirement of furniture for their office and factory premises, they engaged M/s. Shilpa Interiors, 5, Apollo Estate, Mogra Pada, Andheri (East), Mumbai, to manufacture furniture on job work basis. The material for the work was supplied by the Respondents. The Department treated the Respondents to be the manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and issued Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2005 demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,13,557/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven only) for the furniture under Chapter sub-heading No. 9403.00, flush doors under Chapter sub-heading No. 4410.11 and mirrors of sub-heading No. 7006.90 under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 9(2) of the Central ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)9STJ153CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. This stay application and appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 13.10.2006 vide which the adjudicating authority confirmed a tax demand of Rs. 32,34,513/- and education cess amounting to Rs. 1,893/- under the category of Tour Operator and an amount of Rs. 4,939/- under the category of Mandap Keeper and imposed penalties. No appeal is preferred against that part of Order-in-Original, as regards the confirmation of service tax on the value of booking and falling under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, which has not quantified by the adjudicating authority.2. Since the issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of Tribunal, Ahmedabad, we waive the pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeal itself for disposal.3. The main issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of the services provided by the appellant under the category of Tour Operator. The appellant contested the demand on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)LC38Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the stay application as well as the appeal are directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay bearing No. ADN-736/90.B.I. dated 25-7-1990 allowing the appeal of the respondents.2. Since it was urged that the issue involved in the stay application as well as in the appeal is one and the same, both the parties urged for hearing the appeal itself. Hence, we take up the appeal itself for hearing.3. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: Respondents herein, who are manufacturers of motor vehicles, are liable to pay automobile cess imposed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 read with the provisions of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984. They also export the motor vehicles. They claimed rebate of cess paid on the motor vehicles exported, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector (Refunds) on the ground that the cess is not allowed rebate under the Notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Arguing on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,00,146/-, Ld. Counsel for the applicant Shri V. Sridharan submits that the adjudicating authority had confirmed the above mentioned duty payment on photocopier machines cleared by the applicant a 100% EOU to M/s. Indo German Social Service Society, categorizing the clearances under "deemed export" and effect the clearances without indicating the correct assessable value of the goods and without payment of duty by the applicants. The demand was raised by applying the extended period of limitation. The applicant filed an appeal alongwith an application for waiver in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed pre-deposit of the entire amount and the applicant applied for modification of stay order, which application was also dismissed and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction. The plea of the applicant is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(173)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals of this same appellant on similar issue are taken up for disposal after waiver of pre-deposit required.2. a) The appellant are manufacture of certain goods which are of Powder Hair Dye falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 33.05 of Central Excise Tariff Act (Godrej Permanent Hair Dye and Godrej Kali Mehendi).The packing is 3gm sachets and 3 such sachets are put in a carton. Net weight of the product in each carton is 9gms. b) The issue involved whether the product as above and taken out in this manner cleared on payment of duty by the appellant are required to duty levied on value as per Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on MRP (Maximum Retail Price declared on Package.) c) The relevant notification applicable in this two case have the period July 2001 to December 2002 are notification No. 5/2001-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2001 and notification no. 13/2002-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2002, which have been issued and bring goods falling under chapter 32.05 of the Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(171)ELT201Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue pertains to classification of goods described as blind rivets manufactured by the appellant. The rival contentions are that the said goods are classifiable under Chapter heading 7318.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 according to the appellant and under Chapter heading 8308.00 according to the Revenue. "14. In this case it is observed that the assessee was manufacturing the said product since 1992 and filing classification lists as 'Blind Rivets' falling under chapter sub-heading 7318.29 from time to time. The assessee stated that the rivets manufactured by them are of iron & steel. However, the literature supplied by the assessee states that the rivets are available in aluminium alloy material in a variety of lengths and diameters." In this context, I refer to the description of goods falling under heading 7318 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, wherein it is very clear that articles of Iron & Steel falls under this head. Since their goods namely riv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Appellants, have a unit, located in the Kandla Free Trade Zone (hereinafter referred to as KAFTZ for short), where they engage themselves in the activity of manufacturing bottled spray perfumes, eau-de-toilette, deodorant etc.1.2 The processes carried out on the raw material imported and indigenously procured are - 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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(170)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The instant appeal of the appellant /is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), whereunder the confiscation of import consignment of Betamethasone sodium phosphate was confirmed alongwith redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/-and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- The original authority held that since the imported goods failed chemical test for I.P. standards 10 (b) of the Drugs are Cosmetics Act 1940, read with Customs Act 1962.2. It is the case of the appellants that, though the goods did not confirm to the I.P. standards in some particulars, the same can be reprocessed in the appellant's factory so as to make them conform to the said specification. This prayer was addressed to the drugs control authorities and the necessary permission was obtained. Notwithstanding the said permission, the adjudicating authority subjected the goods to confiscation and redemption fine, but also, imposed penalty on the appellants.4. I note that the form in which the goods ...
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 : (2003)(156)ELT966Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was engaged inter alia in the manufacture of a solution of sodium chloride. The solution was packed in plastic containers to be used as a drip. It claimed classification of the product in sub-heading 20 of Heading 30.03 of the tariff as an unpatented medicament. The notice issued by the department proposed to classify it in subheading 10 as a patented medicament on the ground that it bore upon it a symbol, comprising an octagon containing the word COMTECK. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal from the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the contention of the assessee that the container of the product did not in fact bear any such symbol. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders in which he said that the control samples of the product, which were kept by the assessee in compliance with the requirement of the rules under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 did not, on inspect...
Tag this Judgment!