Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT239Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty Rs. 1,26,11/564/- as wrongly availed Modvat credit besides penalty Rs. 30.00 lakhs on the applicant firm and Rs. 2.00 lakhs on its Additional General Manager is applicant Shri S.R. Bansal.2. Shri C.S. Lodha the ld. Sr. Counsel appeared for the applicants along with Shri Mayur Shroff. The ld. Sr. Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner has denied the Modvat credit on the ground that the applicants have not been registered under the Central Excise in terms of Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules. However, the application for registration had been made by them on 6-12-1994. It was returned by the department they further requested for authentication of Central Excise records on 14-3-1995 which was also not considered. The finding that applicants have taken credit before filing of Modvat declaration was not actually correct as they had been filing the declaration from time to time. There is also a factual error in the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(80)LC728Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Orders-in-Appeal No. KPS/648/B. 11/91 dated 10.4.1991 and SDK/280-281/B. 11/91 dated 12.11.1991 both passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Bombay, setting aside the original orders passed by the Assistant Collector and remanding the cases to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration after observing principles of natural justice have been challenged in these appeals.2. Shri Sandeep Mittal, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not pursuing the appeals and would be satisfied if the Assistant Collector re-adjudicates the matter without further delay.3. Appellant's main grievance appears to be that the Assistant Collector has not taken action during the last six years. Appeals are disposed of directing the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to take up the matter at hand for adjudication and pass adjudication orders after granting due opportunity to the appellant....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT489Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application filed by the department. Apparently the department seeks to make this application as a reference application seeking to frame certain questions for the opinion of the High Court in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.2. By our order dated 8th November, 1996, we had set aside the order passed by the Collector Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara dated 14-6-1996, holding that the item in dispute viz. kettle residue was used in the manufacture of ammonium sulphate and by such use it does not disentitle to be considered among the goods indicated in Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules. The manufacture of the final product in this case as well as the nature of the product "kettle residue" have been fully discussed at paragraphs 3 and 4 of our order. The application filed by the department in this case does not reveal any questions. It appears to us that the application as presented to us for consideration is too vague and the only thing we could discern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(103)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants in these cases are composite mills. They manufacture cotton yarn which they use captively for manufacture of fabrics. Under Rules 96V and W of Central Excise Rules manufacturer running a composite mills and using the yarn manufactured by him captively for production of fabrics was given an option to follow the special procedure under the Rules 96V & W and instead of paying excise duty on captively consumed yarn, it can pay duty at the rate payable on the cotton fabric itself. The appellants had opted to pay duty as per the special procedure. They had filed price lists for the cotton fabric falling under Item 19-1 of the old Central Excise Tariff which were also approved by the proper officer.2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants Ashoka Mills by issue of show cause notice in which it was alleged that the appellants were availing special procedure in respect of cotton yarn used for production of cotton fabrics falling under Item 19 CET under Rule 96 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(79)LC667Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original dated 28.2.1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay confirming the demands proposed in five show cause notices in respect of the period from 22.3.1984 to 31.3.1987 as indicated therein.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes, was filing price lists claiming deduction of 10% of the price as sales tax payable to the State Government. It appears, no orders were passed on the price lists and the appellant was clearing the goods on payment of duty appropriate to the assessable value proposed in the price lists. Subsequent investigation having shown that the appellant availed the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax, five show cause notices were issued for different periods stating that sales tax not payable to the State Govt. was not deductible in determining assessable value and alleging deliberate and wilful misdeclaration of assessable value and claiming deduction on account o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT280Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 13 applications are for waiver of duty of Rs. 91.62 lacs (approximately) demanded from the assessee and penalties as follows: 2. Representative of the assessee explains that the duty has been demanded following investigation concerning note books recovered from the factory of the assessee. The Commissioner has found that these note books contained details of excisable goods cleared without payment of duty on brass rods, wires and strips. The Commissioner found that these were cleared in nil duty gate passes by describing them as ball point pen tips, which were exempted. He contends that these records which are the sole basis for the demand were maintained by a part time employee who was doing the accounts work of the firm. This employee had, during cross-examination denied that the note book related to non duty paid goods. Order of the Commissioner relying entirely on this statement is not substantiated. He says that Rs. 50.00 lacs has already been deposited, out of the duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(79)LC369Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are appeals of Revenue involving a common issue whether refund in respect of duty paid on goods used for captive consumption by the respondents herein can be denied to the respondents on the ground of unjust enrichment. Both the Ld. Advocates for the respondents have stated that the appeals of Revenue emanate from the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. The said High Court has clearly held in the judgment of Solar Pesticides 1994 (50) ECR 7 (Bom) that the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply in such cases. Accordingly, both of them submit that the appeals of Revenue be rejected on this sole ground itself. On the other hand, Ld. JCDR Shri Lakhinder Singh, assisted by Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the Revenue submits that the entire question is before the Apex Court who are yet to deliver th,eir judgements in the matter of giving refund to the assessees. The Apex Court has been putting the assessees on terms before claiming the refund allowed by the lower authorities. He, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT56Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 64,33,245/- as duty amount on Man Made Fabrics and of a penalty of Rs. 1.20 crores on applicant M/s. Sunsilk Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. as well as a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs on its Director, the other applicant Shri Ramprakash A. Baria.2. The ld. Counsel Shri Willingdon Christian appearing for the applicant along with the ld. Counsel Shri Mayur Shroff pleaded that the applicants have already paid the full duty amount even during the adjudication proceedings which is also recorded in the impugned order itself and in these circumstances he would plead for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty which is harsh and excessive. The ld.Counsel submitted that since the charge against the applicant is of clandestine removal of man-made fabrics, the issue will require examination of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. Therefore, they would only plead for waiver of penalty.3. We have heard Shri K.L. Ramt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT267Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal, against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.23/94-BCH, dated 13-1-1994 in File No. S/49-76/93 Lic of the Respondent praying for setting aside the same and for such other orders deemed fit.1. The facts of the case are that the Appellant manufactures Audio Magnetic Tapes, under Central Excise license, and non-woven fabric materials is one of the materials used for it, and for want of particular specification in India, it had to be imported from Japan.Before doing so the Appellant wrote to D.G.F.T. on 4-5-1988 as whether it could be imported under OGL, and to CCI & E on 1-6-1988, and they have in their letters dated 19-8-1988 and 31-10-1988 have replied that non-woven fabric rolls is covered under Appendix VI, List 8 Part I against Serial No. 375 of I.E. Policy for 1988-91 subject to actual user condition and other conditions laid down thereunder. Accordingly Appellant received supply of non-woven fabric in roll form from suppliers in Japan/and on importati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(80)LC142Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of "photophone photographic cameras" and clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty, filed refund claim dated 28.4.1987 for Rs. 14,40,204.50 being excess duty paid under protest on the value of gift box and after sales service charges. Appellant also filed another refund claim dated 27.2.1987 seeking refund of Rs. 3,78,856.25. The Assistant Collector held that a part of the first claim was barred by limitation, treated excess duty collected cum-duty price and worked out the duty actually payable on the non-barred part of the first refund claim and the amount of the second refund claim and found that the amounts actually eligible for refund were Rs. 11,74,680/- and Rs. 3,03,085/-. These amounts were partly directed to be refunded and in regard to another part, credit was granted. On the aspect of limitation and recalculation of duty amount, appellant filed an appeal before Collector (Appeals) who set aside the finding that a part of the f...
Tag this Judgment!