Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Daulat S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 6,32,949/- availed during the month of May 1995, has been disallowed to the appellants by the Commissioner of Central Excise on Electric wires and Cabels, Pumps and Stainless steel tubes on the ground that these are not Capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57(Q) of the Central Excise Rules.2. On hearing both the sides I note that eligibility of all the three items set out above has been decided in favour of the assessee by various decisions. In the case of C.C.E. v. Jawahar Mills 2001 (132) ELT 3(SC). The Supreme Court has upheld the tribunal order holding that Electrical wires and cabels are Capital goods. In terms of the explanation Rule 57Q and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. In the case of SIEL Sugar 1998-99 ELT 54 it has been held that Pumps for handling Sugar Syrup in a Sugar Mills are Capital Goods. In the case of Ghatampur Sugar Co. Ltd., 198 (104) ELT-415, Stainless Steel tubes used in boilers in Sugar mills were held to be Capital goods, enti...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. R.D. Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal was filed by the Revenue on 6.6.2001 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In this judgment the Commissioner had found that the goods sent to the job worker factory under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been received within 180 days but that the credit had been taken at a later date. In allowing the appeal he had referred to his earlier Order No. RJB/M.II/2000 dt. 14.9.2000.2. When this appeal had come for admission, Revenue was asked whether an appeal had been filed in the earlier order. Departmental Representative places on record letter from the appealing Commissioner to the effect that the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. In view of this situation I find that this appeal become infructuous and is dismissed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Poonitronics (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal in their order No. C-II/3027/WZB/2000 dated 23.10.2000 followed the ratio of the judgment in the case of Rama Cables & Wires Ltd. [1993 (68) ELT 256 (Tribunal)] in holding that where any declaration had been made of more than one final product, the credit obtained on purchase of inputs going into one of them could be used for payment of duty on the other. The Tribunal cited other judgment to the contrary but observed that more than one judgment was in favour of the assessee. The appeal was allowed.2. Revenue has now filed an application for rectification of a mistake apparent on the fact of the record. It is claimed that the reliance place on the judgment in the case of Rama Cables & Wires Ltd. is incorrect inasmuch as the tape mechanisum is not fit for radio set.3. I find that the applicant Commissioner has not understood the principle of precedents. It is not the facts in the precedent case that are material but it is the ratio arising therefrom. In therefore...

Cibatul Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Assessee purchased certain goods from the Small Scale Sector and were eligible to take credit higher than what was paid by the First Manufacturer. However, they initially took credit of the duty actually paid and at a later date, took the incremental credit. Show cause notice were issued seeking reversal thereof. The Assistant Collector relied upon a trade notice and reversed the incremental credit. The Collector appeals having upheld the reversal, the present appeal has been filed.2. The issue is covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Mysore Lac & Paint Works Ltd., [1991 (52) ELT 590]. When it was cited before the Commissioner, he chose to disagree with the decision. In doing so, he did not distinguish the ratio of the judgment. The doing so, he did not distinguish the ratio of the judgment. The Law of Precedence requires that an appellate authority follow a cited decision of a superior court or Tribunal without demur. Where the facts are identical, it is not give...

Western Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are not present. On earlier occasion also they remained absent. The case is, therefore, decided on the strength of documents on record and after hearing Shri M.H.Shaikh.2. The appellants manufactured aluminium products on their own as well as on job work basis. They consumed furnace oil for melting of aluminium. The appellants performed such job work under Rule 57(3) of the Central Excise Rule 1944 where certain processes were undertaken on the inputs sent to them. Since such goods did not discharge the burden of duty in the hands of the job workers, the Assistant Collector after issue of Show Cause Notice and after hearing the Assessee disallowed the credit on furnace oil used for such job processing. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld the decision, the present appeal has been filed.3. The basic principle of the MODVAT Scheme is where the final product is dutiable, credit taken of the duty paid on the inputs can be utilised for payment of duty on the final produc...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Steelage Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents here in availed Modvat credit on the basis of the original copy of invoice issued by Steelage Industries Ltd., during the period 03.05.1994 to 20.08.94. The objection was raised that the original copy of the invoices was not the prescribed duty paying document and only the duplicate copy for transporter is the modvatable copy. The Assistant Commissioner of Central excise disallowed credit.The lower appellate authority reversed his order, helding that the original copy of the invoice is the duty paying document as regards goods purchased from SAIL, hence this appeal by the revenue.2. I have heard both the sides. I find that the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued Circular No. 76 dt. 8.11.94 clarifying that invoice issued by a dealer upon 31-12-94 can be accepted for availing Modvat credit, if such invoice contains essential particulars such as quantity of goods, Rate of duty, Amount of duty, etc., This circular refers to notification 15/94, 21/94 and 32/94 and...

Dairy Tops Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Appellants are not present. On earlier occasions also they had remained absent. The case is, therefore, decided on the strength of documents on record.2. The refund of Rs. 39,526.38 was rejected by the Assistant Collector.In doing so, he held that the duty incidence was passed on by the claimants to their buyers. He had also held that the refund claimed was barred by limitation. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision on both grounds. Hence the appeal.3. In the appeal memorandum, an earlier refund order has been enclosed where the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the burden of duty had not been passed on. I find that this order does not benefit the appellants, since the mode of commerce may have changed during the intervening period. In the present case, Assessee has not secured any such certificate by the Range Officer. Their claim that they had claimed the refund on the RT12 Returns and therefore, the limitation would not apply, is also without any merit....

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT927Tri(Mum.)bai

2. By order P/27/96 issued on 112.1.1996, the Commissioner (Appeals) at Pune disposed of an appeal filed by Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. In that order, he held that the castings made by the appellant before him could not be considered to be part of power driven pump and therefore would not be entitled to the exemption contained in notification 64/86. He, however, remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration the question raised before him by the appellant as to whether the benefit of notification 178/88 would be available to copper castings and notification 223/88 to steel castings. He further remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration as to the applicability of the extended period of limitation.3. The manufacturer appealed this order. The Tribunal accepted the contention raised before it, and held that there was no basis for denying the benefit of notification 64/86, and it allowed the manufacturer's appeal and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.4. In the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Voshkod Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The refund claim filed by the assessee of Rs. 6,25,327/- was dismissed by the Dy. Commissioner on finding that the assessee had failed to substantiate their claim on the strength of documentary evidence. He made it clear he was not going into the merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) reverse. The decision on the finding that all the regular documents were attached to the refund claim. Since the ground on which the claim was rejected was invalid, the appeal was allowed. Against this order Revenue have filed the appeal, an application for stay of operation of the order and also an application for early hearing to the case.2. In the grounds of appeal the facts leading to the claim of refund have been discussed. The averment is made that the adjudicating authority had gone into the merits of the case. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) that documentary evidence was produced is also doubted.3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The letter dt. 1.5.2000 by the Dy. Commis...

Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT123Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in this appeal relates to the availability of Modvat credit of Rs. 51,991/- on "Crotonaldehyde" used to denature Ethyl Alcohol which in turn is used as an input in the manufacture of the appellants final products. Acetic acid and acetaldehyde. The authority below have disallowed the credit holding that the item in question is not required in the manufacturer of the final product, as the final product can be manufactured even without the use of this input which is only used so as to render Ethyl Alcohol unfit for human consumption as per the requirements of the State Excise Department.2. There is no dispute that Crotonaldehyde is used to denature of Ethyl Alcohol, which is then used in the manufacturer of the appellants final product. Therefore it is definitely an input which is used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Singh Alloys & Steel 1993 (66) ELT 594 which ha...