Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments

Paresh Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In its order, the tribunal had waived deposit of penalty imposed on Shashikant Rane. It records his submission that he was not given an opportunity of being heard before the Commissioner. He had evidence of request made by him for adjournment of the hearing.2. It is contended before us that the same consideration would apply to this applicant. The Tribunal had recorded his submission with regard to the absence of hearing along these lines. Financial hardship is also pleaded on the ground that the applicant is earning a salary of Rs 4000/- on which he has to support five persons, and has no assets. An affidavit in support is produced.3. The departmental representative contends that detailed order has been passed by the Tribunal and that the financial hardship is only now being claimed.4. Although the Tribunal has recorded the submission of the applicant with regard to failure of natural justice, it has not given any prima facie finding in its order. Prima facie the applicant's case ...

Commissioner of C. Excise Vs. Indochem Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The respondent to this appeal re-imported a consignment of dies which it had exported earlier, the buyer abroad having refused to accept it as being defective.3. The goods were cleared after paying customs duty including additional duty of customs. On receipt of the goods in its factory, the appellant took Modvat credit of the additional duty of customs. The department objected to this by issue of notice on the ground that the finished goods cannot be inputs, and, in cases of return of goods, the provisions of Rule 173L that would apply. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice issued to the appellant which embodied this objection. On an appeal by the assessee the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no prohibition in law that finished goods being considered to be inputs and allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence this appeal by the department. 4. The ground in the department's appeal is the reiteration of the gro...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT689Tri(Mum.)bai

1.The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is whether M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (the respondent) was entitled to take Modvat credit on the basis of duplicate (or customer's) copy of challan issued for the goods supplied by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL for short). The Assistant Commissioner had held that this was not permissible, relying upon the provisions of Sub-rules (2) and (4) of Rule 57G. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the Trade Notice No. 193/89 issued on 16-9-1989 by the Collector. This trade notice provided that credit could be taken on delivery challans by evidencing payment of duty on goods supplied by SAIL. The appeal before me questions the correctness of this order.2. The reliance in the appeal on the provisions of Sub-rules (2) and (4) of Rule 57G. The departmental representative points out that while Sub-rule (2) is silent on which copy of the duty paying document credit could be taken. Sub...

ito Vs. H.A. Containers

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)729

ORDERPradeep Parikh, A.M.The department is in appeal before us against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18-1-1999 for assessment year 1995-96. Following grounds have been raised in the appeal :'1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in accepting details produced by the assessee in contravention of rule 46A when it was evident that assessee had not filed any evidence of income/expenditure along with the return or at assessment stage.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of 10 per cent of expenses being Rs. 20,940 and addition of Rs. 1,23,892 being 20 per cent of hire charges treated as income in the absence of evidence regarding expenses claimed.'2. The assessee-firm. is engaged in the business of transport contract rule This is the first return of the assessee and the income declared is Nil. Despite several notices, none a...

Wamal Indl. Chemicals Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC670

1. This is an application for stay of duty demand of Rs. 3,91,800 and Rs. 50,000 imposed as penalty. The facts of the case are that the assessee is manufacturing phosphorous penta sulphide by itself as well as through job worker for M/s. Exeel Industries Ltd. They were claiming exemption under notification 214/86. The contention of the assessee was that in view of the specific words used in Rule 57CC Clauses (1) & (9) in respect of fuels, they need not maintain separate account. It is submitted by Shri H. Shroff, learned Counsel, that before the issue of show cause notice Modvat credit has been reversed. Shri A.K.Jain, learned JDR, states that this is the normal practice that some of the assessees adopt. In that they take the modvat credit and when the situation comes tight the credit thereby avoiding imposition of penalties.2. It is a fact the modvat credit even though taken by the assessee has been reversed. Whether the penalty would be imposable or not has to be decided at the ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ashok Fashion Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT94Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The RA has been filed requiring the Tribunal to take the following question of law :- "In a case where goods were chargeable to Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Additional Duties Act'), whether the imposition of penalty and levying of fine in lieu of confiscation under Central Excise Act, 1944 was unlawful, when Section 3 of the Additional Duties Act is expressive enough to make all provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules applicable, if they are 'in relation to' the levy and - Collection of duties of excise?" The question involved is in respect of whether the department would be right in imposing penalty for violations of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 under the provisions of Central Excise Act. Under the similar circumstances in the case of CCE v.Subhash Textile and. Ors. - 2000 (38) RLT 1142, the Tribunal has referred the case for the opinion of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.Therefore the ...

H.V. Indus. Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC97

1. This order is concerned with two sets of appeals. The first set, one by M/s. Rider Industries (hereinafter referred to as Rider), and the other by the department, is against the Order No. 429/CEX/93, dated 31-12-93 of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad. In that order, the Collector was adjudicating on a notice issued in May 1991 to Rider.This notice narrated that Rider was permitted to avail of the facility of invoice value, and was therefore not required to file a price list for assessment of the goods manufactured by it. The sales of these goods from its factory were negligible, and it sold virtually all of its production either from its sales depot at Bombay, or through its distributor M/s. H.V. Industrial Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (HVIE for short). The notice alleged that Rider and HVIE were related persons, being interested in the business each other and the entire production of Rider were sold through HV Industries. Therefore, it is the price at which the goods were sold...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC686

1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order in Appeal No. 158/99(32-CCP)CUS/COMMR.(A)/AHD dated 8-3-1999 wherein he ordered assessment at the value declared by the appellant namely Rs. 91,14,315/- and granted abatement of duty of Rs. 90,30,311/- reversing the assessment order passed by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Alang, made in order dated 23-12-1997.2. M/s. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. imported under OGL one vessel "MV VLOO ARUN" for breaking. It was admitted by both sides that on 4-6-1997 the said Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. took physical delivery of the vessel. On 24-6-1997 the said company requested time for filing bill of entry. On 12th August, 1997 the bankers of the said company remitted to the seller of the vessel full value of the LC opened by the said Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. of the value US $ 68,49,839/- equivalent to Rs. 24 cro...

Leeds Kem Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT548Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad confirmed the demand of Rs. 98,899/- and Rs. 25,21,385/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the applicants M/s. Leeds Kem.Penalties have been levied on other co-noticees under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, the appeals.2. The main controversy between the parties is - the Department claimed the product manufactured by the applicants before us to come within the purview of the Central Excise Tariff Sub-Heading 3808. The applicants before us claimed that it comes under Sub-Heading 3101. The main issue before the Tribunal in this case is regarding valuation only. For the purpose of valuation, unless the classification of the product is undertaken, the correct valuation cannot be made.3. Today only stay petitions have been posted for hearing. However, since the matter has been finally decided in respect of the classification of the product in the applicants' own case by the Delhi Bench ...

Polyester Moulding Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC113

1. The common question for consideration in these two appeals by the same appellant, one against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune and Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune is eligibility of the goods manufactured to the benefit of Notification 133/86.2. The appellant purchased polyester resin in liquid form, and added to it chopped glass strands and other substances, obtaining thereby a product in the form of dough, commonly referred to as dough moulding compound. In the order impugned in the appeal E/787/95 which has been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order impugned in the other appeal E/1961/97, it has been held that, as a result of addition of these substances, a new product, dough moulding compound emerges, which is other than the unsaturated polyester resin specified in the notification.3. Entry 10 of the Table to the notification, which is what we are concerned with, exempts from duty in excess of 20% ad valorem polyester resin classifiable under Head...