1999 (2) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
WADCO PACKAGING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ......
........... e are of the view that nowhere the assessee said that they were supplying the integral parts as separately to its customers. It is not possible for us to say that there has been a correlation between the cartons and the integral part. Their financial condition is not so dismal as to warrant waiver of the pre-deposit. In fact the company has earned profit as indicated in the balance sheet filed before us. It also reveals lot of reserves which is more than Rs. 1 crore. The dividend in the year 1997-98 is also more than what was declared in the previous year. We are therefore of the view, that ends of justice will be met by directing the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs towards duty demand within 2 months from today. On such payment being made there will be stay of collection of remaining sum of duty as well as penalty on the company and on the employee of the company, who has also filed an application before us and stay its recovery. 3. emsp Compliance on 24th March, 1999.
1999 (2) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
DIPCO METAL FABRICATORS P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ......
........... p We have considered the rival submissions. When we look into it at page 142 we cannot come to a definite conclusion that chassis and other things are manufactured at the appellants factory. This is only a prima facie view which we recorded. The limitation point we feel is very difficult to state at this stage. Moreover, it is very difficult for us to come to conclusion whether when the appellants had claimed exemption in the classification list can change the classification of the product at the time of hearing with retrospective effect. These are all the aspects which we have to consider at the time of final hearing. The financial hardship has not been pleaded. We are, therefore of the view that if we direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within 2 months from today the ends of justice would be met. On such payment being made there shall be waiver of payment of duty and penalty inflicted under the impugned order and stay the recovery. Compliance on 26-3-1999.
1999 (2) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
BHANSALI ENGG. POLYMERS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., INDORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ......
........... , no duty was required to be paid at this stage but the officer has strangly stated that in view of the Board rsquo s circular these orders or judgments have no legal force. 10. emsp We have considered the rival submissions. We observe that prima facie, the appellants appear to have a strong case both on merits and on time bar. 11. emsp The Department has not been able to contradict at this stage that the fact of drawal of sample for testing within the factory had not been disclosed and the Tribunal rsquo s order or judgments cannot be just ignored but have to be dealt with. Prima facie, it was for the Department to show that the RG-I stage had been crossed and yet no duty has been paid and was intentionally evaded. 12. emsp Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, we consider that the appellants request, is justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, waive the pre-deosit of the amount of duty and penalty during the pendency of the appeal.
1999 (2) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SHREE RAJ LAXMI PROCESSORS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE
........... nsidered the submissions of both sides and perused the application for restoration setting out the reasons for (a) non-appearance on 11th July, 1990 and (b) for applying only in 1998 for restoration of the appeal dismissed about eight years back. There is nothing on record to disprove or rebut the contention of the appellants that they had not received the copy of the final order dated 11th July, 1990 and we also find that they had intimated to the Tribunal about the current address of the premises on 4th March, 1991 and there is no communication from the Tribunal rsquo s Registry regarding dismissal of their appeal, even after this date. Therefore, we accept whatever is stated in the application for restoration. We recall the dismissal order, restore the appeal and fix the miscellaneous application and the appeal (subject to orders on the miscellaneous application) for hearing on 16-4-1999. The ROA application is allowed. A copy of this order to be given to both sides Dasti.
1999 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY Versus CYTO PHARMACEUTICALS
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ......
........... s only on the ground that he affixes the brand name of someone else. 6. emsp In the grounds of appeal extracted above, the Revenue had pleaded that the value of clearances of M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals if calculated after taking into account, their goods manufactured by the respondents rsquo company then it would not be eligible for the small scale exemption. We find that the present proceedings are not against the Group Pharmaceuticals. The ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has taken a correct view in the matter that the value of clearances of both the units could not be clubbed. As we have observed above, the respondents rsquo company had already been taken into account while arriving at their eligibility for small scale exemption, the goods produced on behalf of the Group Pharmaceuticals. In view of the above observations, we do not find any infirmity in the views taken by the appellate authority and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
1999 (2) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI Versus ASAHI INDIA SAFETY GLASS LTD.
Modvat - Imported inputs used in the manufacture under bond ......
........... the observations of the Commissioner in para 6 of the impugned order that the provisions of the Modvat scheme have to be read and interpreted in harmony with the provisions of the Customs Act. Any interpretation which would deny to the assessee the benefits flowing from due compliance of the provisions of Sections 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, cannot be said to be the correct interpretation merely because the procedure under Modvat rules envisaged taking of credit under the cover of prescribed duty paying documents at the time of receipt of the inputs in the factory, especially when the appellants have operated fully in compliance of the directions of the Department. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the reasons given by the Commissioner in dropping the proceedings initiated under the three Show Cause Notices seeking to deny availing of Modvat credit by the respondents. 4. emsp In the light of the above discussion we uphold the impugned order and reject the Revenue Appeal.
1999 (2) TMI 244 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
PRESTIGE COUNTING INSTRUMENTS P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI
SSI exemption - Brand name ......
........... was in mind which he says indicates these to be fully manufactured. There is no material evidence to rebut this finding. We are therefore, unable to interfere with this part of the impugned order. Redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- is commensurate with the offence and the value of the goods. It does not call for further reduction. 4. emsp No specific reason has been indicated for imposition of penalty on the other two appellants. It would appear that penalty is on the finding that the benefit of notification has been incorrectly available. Accordingly we allow those two appeals and set aside the penalty imposed. While the penalty on the assessee may appear to be also on account of failure to enter the goods in the record, we do not consider this penalty should be imposed in addition to the redemption fine following confiscation of goods. We set aside the penalty imposed. 5. emsp Appeal E/4642/94 is allowed in part. The other two appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any.
1999 (2) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
BHAVESH GANDHI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ......
........... ments cited by the learned Advocate in support of his case for such waiver and stay. Accordingly, we waive the penalties imposed on the three firms, namely, MVC, FEL and SMS as left after the adjustment made by the Commissioner in terms of sub-para (g) of para 8 of the impugned order. 3.2 emsp As regards the penalties on the CHA firm M/s. Alankar Shipping Agents Pvt. Ltd. zand the Director, Shri K.K. Nair of CHA firm, we accept the offer of the learned advocate for pre-deposit of amount of Rs. 1 lakh by CHA firm. In the event of complying with these directions, the balance amount of penalty on the CHA firm and the penalty on the individual Shri K.K. Nair, Director shall stand waived and the Revenue shall also be debarred from recovering any further amount from these two persons pending their appeals. 4. emsp Stay applications disposed of in the above terms. 5. emsp To come up for ascertaining compliance in respect of CHA firm M/s. Alankar Shipping Agents P. Ltd. on 24-3-1999.
1999 (2) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
PHOENIX MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MUMBAI
Printing Paste - Captive consumption for printing of fabrics - Classification ......
........... the printing paste was prepared out of duty paid formulated, standardised or prepared dyes. The Appellants have to substantiate their claim by adducing evidence before the adjudicating authority within one month of receipt of this order. As the Appellants have contended that they did not have the opportunity of representing against the classification of impugned product under sub-heading 3204.29, the adjudicating authority will afford an opportunity of hearing to them for submitting their submissions on the classification aspect also. If the product is held to be excisable and chargeable to duty, the appellants will be eligible to avail of the Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs irrespective of the fact that no declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules was filed and other procedure was not followed subject to the production of duty paying documents by the Appellants to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority. We, therefore, allow the appeal by remand.
1999 (2) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
JERSLY INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ......
........... ion is also to be considered when the appeal is heard. Prima facie the demand is not barred by limitation since the appellants have nowhere described their goods to the Central Excise authorities and even the description given in the shipping bills as knitted fabrics containing cotton and either spandix or lykra is not sufficient for the Central Excise authorities to come to the conclusion that the goods were knitted fabrics containing elastomeric yarn covered by CET sub heading 6002.30. However, since the appellants have been declared a sick unit by the order of the BIFR and since the Managing Director rsquo s report for the year ending 31-3-1998 shows that the company has incurred loss of Rs. 246 lakhs for the period 31-3-1998 we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty on the ground of financial hardship and accordingly waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.
1999 (2) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SANJIVA BOTTLING CO. (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE
Stay order - Modification of - SSI exemption ......
........... mits that the grant of exemption for a different period either to Venkateshwar Essences or to the applicant herein is not a ground which by itself is to be taken into account for the purpose of considering an earlier order. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We note that in the case of Venkateshwar Essences, where the benefit has been denied for the year 1988-89 and where the appeal is pending before the Southern Zonal Bench, the Bench has directed pre-deposit by the Venkateshwar Essences of a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs - in other words, conditional order was passed even in respect of Venkateshwar Essences which is the owner of the brand name used by the applicants. This being so, we are not satisfied that the applicants have made out a case for waiver and hence dismiss the application for modification, but extend the time for complying with the pre-deposit requirement by six weeks from today. Matter to come up for reporting compliance on 28-4-1999.
1999 (2) TMI 239 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
TITAGARH INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-III
Modvat on capital goods ......
........... Red hot liquid wastage metal rsquo , the same are liable to be considered as capital goods. In this connection, I find that the Tribunal in the case of Century Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 1997 (95) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal) has held that the dust collecting bags/filter bags which are used for prevention of air pollution are part and parcel of the manufacturing process of cement and, therefore, are eligible to the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods. Similarly, in the case of Grasim Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise 1997 (96) E.L.T. 354 (Tribunal) , material handling equipments have also been held to be eligible Modvatable capital goods. As in the instant case, Slag Pots not only collect the waste material but such collected waste material is further used for re-cycling of the same. As such, I hold that the Slag Pots are eligible capital goods for the purposes of Modvat credit. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
1999 (2) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., AHMEDABAD Versus SHREE NIJRANG POLY PACK INDS.
........... 2 , in negating the ratio of the judgment in the case of Multilayer Composites Pvt. Ltd. 1993 (63) E.L.T. 565 (Tribunal) 1993 (46) ECR 436 . I have examined the three judgments. These judgments were also scrutinized by the Collector in the lower order. In the Multilayer Composites judgment, the Tribunal had taken into account the judgments relied upon by the revenue and had distinguished them. In the Multilayer Composites judgment, printing ink was held to be an eligible input. Shri Mondal also refers to the Single Member judgment in the case of Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. 1996 (84) E.L.T. 293 in which in exactly identical circumstances, the Tribunal held that printing ink was an input for printing brand name and manufacturers name on paper bags. 5. emsp In view of these circumstances and in view of the fact that the appellant Collector has not placed any case law in his favour in the appeal memorandum, I upheld the impugned order and dismiss these appeals from the revenue.
1999 (2) TMI 235 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
IN RE: CAPRIHANS INDIA LTD.
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ......
........... which were incurred during the period 1-7-1986 to 30-6-1987 had already been included in the assessable value. For the subsequent period, it is seen from the CA certificate that no separate packing charges were incurred at the depot for packing of the laminated sheets and the expenditure incurred had already been taken into account while determining the assessable value. The adjudicating authority, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division-III, Thane had found no evidence to indicate that the assessee had recovered the charges towards packing cost incurred by them in their duty paid depot. On going through the facts on record and the discussion by the appellate authority, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. 5. emsp In view of the above findings of the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal on the same issue of the appellant, I do not find any merit in the impugned order which is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.
1999 (2) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., INDORE
........... e principle would apply to cases under the Central Excise Act also. We have taken note of the submission of the learned Advocate that in the Customs side, there exists a notification granting exemption from customs duty for goods imported as replacements under the warranty clause (though no copy thereof was actually placed before us). However, even the existence of such a notification will not affect the legal position in the present case as it is the settled position that no exemption notification issued under one Act can be extended to situations covered by another enactment though the principle under-lying the grant of exemption in the former may also apply to the latter. 9. emsp In the above view of the matter, we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 10. emsp In the result, the present appeal filed by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited is rejected and the order of the Collector impugned in the present appeal confirmed.