Latest Cases

Mangal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2002)(139)ELT380Tri(Mum.)bai

.....under this heading.6. again, whatever being the pattern of trade prior to 1976, when the high court passed this order, it is clear to us there is a very much a trade in unblended cocoa powder in that name. the fact that the appellant and others regularly imported these goods is significant. the goods are described in the invoice as cocoa powder unblended and unflavoured. counsel for the appellants accepts that the appellant sells these goods as unblended cocoa powder to persons who use it either after blending or sells it to manufacturers of cocoa preparations. in the case that we are concerned with, it is clear that while there may or may not be a trade in unflavoured or unblended cocoa powder, between the blender of such cocoa and the persons who make the cocoa preparations, prior to that state, as between the manufacturer of the powder and the blender there is very clearly trade in this commodity which is known as cocoa powder. to say that cocoa powder is not traded as such, and it is only blended powder that is known to the trade, is entirely unacceptable. we therefore find no reason for interference.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Baheti Metal and Ferro Alloys

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. the application for early hearing has been filed by the revenue on the ground that stakes to the extent of over rs. 53 lakhs are involved.the appeal is of the year 1999 and the amount involved does not warrant jumping the queue. hence, we dismiss the present application. either side is at liberty to move appropriate application for transfer of the case to cegat, delhi.

Bal Krishana Jhawar, Tarachand B. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

.....authorised signatory. the case of the department is that m/s. reliable poly fib(india)ltd. which is an 100% eou has contravened the provisions of rule 100b of the central excise rules in as much they have failed to maintain daily stock account in respect of raw materials imported duty free up-to-date as well as kept an excess stock of 25,483 kgs. of pfy in excess of the stock shown in the statutory records by way of manipulation of the installed capacity of the twisting machine in their unit. it is the case of the department that only 42 power looms were working whereas the installed capacity of the unit using 66 weaving machines/power looms was around 2400 to 3000 mtr. per day.2. although, notice has been issued to the applicants, none appeared.hence, we have heard shri sarkar for the revenue and perused the records.3. no prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount has been made out by the applicants as the issue on merits is debatable. although, the applicants have stated that they have already deposited a sum of rs. 3,79,500/-, it is not clear as to whether this pre-deposit represents duty or penalty. the documents under which the above amount was.....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Blue Bends India Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. there being no objection from the representative of the respondent, the delay in filing the appeal e/2117/01 is condoned. the application 327/99 is for stay of operation of the order of the commissioner impugned in the appeal e/516/99. there being absolutely no reason for staying operation of the order, we dismiss it.

Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2000)LC47Tri(Mum.)bai

.....appellants were called upon to intimate whether the duty paid by them and now claimed as refund has been collected from their customers/merchant manufacturers and the submission of the appellants was that the refund claim represented the excess amount realised through bank guarantee and that the refund claim was not against any excess duty paid by them. the assistant commissioner rejected the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. the commissioner (appeals) held that the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable for the present case and rejected the appeal of the assessee. hence the appeal.5. on hearing both sides we note that the appellant's claim right from the start that their refund claim is restricted to the excess amount and does not represent the refund of excise duty has not been disputed by the adjudicating authority in the final order dated 19-9-1995. the commissioner (appeals) also in the present impugned order does not hold that the amount for which the refund is sought represents excise duty payable by the appellants. therefore the learned counsel is correct in his submission that the present situation is covered by the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the.....

Assistant Engineer (Civil), Mseb Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. for the reasons recorded below we waive the pre-deposit of duty of rs. 1,84,918/- and proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.2. we find that the lower appellate authority passed an order in terms of section 35f on 24.1.01 directing pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty. the applicant submits that he received the said order dated 24.1.01 only on 19.3.01, alongwith a copy of the final order dated 27.1.01, dismissing the appeal.3. there is nothing on record to controvert the submission made by the applicant. in this circumstance, we have no alternative but to set aside the impugned order and send the matter back for fresh decision by the commissioner (appeals). we order accordingly.

M/S Auto Shell Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in : (2000)LC407Tri(Chennai)

.....11ac of ce act 1944. the appellants had removed rough castings to their job worker under rule 57f (3) from the arisen waste and scrap during the manufacture of final products at the job worker's place. in terms of law, the waste and scrap was required to have been returned to the appellants or duty paid on it by the job worker. as both was not done, demands were raised and confirmed.2. the appellants' contention is that they had removed 11.9 kgs. of castings as raw material under rule 57f(3). the waste and scrap was to an extent of 1.1kg. on which duty was required to have been paid. in order to avoid all complications, they have paid duty without taking abatement on the castings on the entire weight of 11.9 kgs. removed to the job worker. therefore, they contend that question of paying duty again on waste and scrap did not arise. this plea was put forward before the commissioner who has agreed to the fact that duty was aid on the gross weight of the castings but however, has not taken into consideration their plea to give set-off to the waste and scrap to the extent of 1.1kg., hence this appeal.3. heard ld. chartered accountant shri suresh and shri soundararajan, ld. dr.4. ld......

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. India RosIn Industries

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

.....1995, in which it is stated that the importer of the products shall at the time of importation make a claim that the products are produced or manufactured in the contracting state from which they are imported and such products are eligible for preferential concession.6. shri a. jayachandran, dr has also submitted that the claim has to be filed as per rule 5 at the time of importation so that the country of origin of the goods could be examined and exemption notification had been claimed at the time of clearance of goods, they could have been examined at that time only, which according to him is not possible in the absence of goods, which have already been cleared.7. ld. counsel shri s.s. radhakrishnan relied on the judgment in the case of zuari agro chemicals ltd. v. cc, bombay as reported in 1997 (89) elt 707 (t). the report of the examination of goods in available and the country of origin is mentioned and the appellant had declared the product to be of shri lankan origin and produced a certificate to that effect. in this connection, he has invited our attention to para 26 of the above judgment, in which it was held that the fact that the appellants had declared the product.....

M/S Sabnife Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

.....in the case of luminous electronic pvt. ltd. vs. cce, new delhi [2001 (129) elt 605-trib.l.b.] holding that the upss is classifiable as static converters under 85.04 and 5-member setting aside the earlier order rendered in the case of tata liebert & ors. (supra). as the apes court has not given stay of the operation of 5-member judgment therefore, the prayer to keep this appeal pending is not accepted. the ratio of the 5-member judgment rendered in the case of luminous electronics pvt. ltd. is binding on this bench and therefore, while allowing the stay application and staying the operation of the impugned order, the appeal taken up and the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief.

M.V. Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. the above appeal was dismissed on the ground that the defects were not rectified by the appellants. the dismissal was made by the final order no. c.ii/512/wzb/2001 dated 8.3.01. the ld. counsel for the appellants submits before us that the defects had been rectified within the time granted but the compliance papers have not been put up before the bench who passed the dismissal order. we are satisfied that the appeal requires to be restored. accordingly, we restore the appeal.