Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Arun R. Saraf Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. One applications is for restoration of the Tribunal's order passed on 1.4.1998 for default. The other application is to bring on record the widow of the appellant in order to pursue the appeal.2. The ground in the application for restoration is that Arun R. Saraf, appellant, died on 24.5.1996. His wife, who read the order, was not able to follow its implication. Subsequently, when she received another order passed on 3.12.1999 allowing the appeal of the brother-in-law, she became wiser and took steps to proceed in the matter.3. It is significant that the appeal of the brother-in-law that was allowed by the Tribunal relates to the facts similar to those in the appeal of Arun Saraf. The conclusion that one has to draw from this is that it was not in ignorance that prevented the widow of Arun Saraf from approaching the Tribunal earlier, it is only that when she realised that the appeal of the brother-in-law was allowed, the appeal of Arun Saraf also could have been allowed.4. In my vi...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Noel Pharmaceuticals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), reversing the order of the Assistant Collector that the assessee was not entitled to take modvat credit for the reasons specified in the three show cause notices which he adjudicated.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) reproduces the relevant parts of the three show cause notices. The notices dated 16.1.1995 and 30.1.1995 proposed to deny credit on the ground that invoices show that the goods were "supplied second sale" and details of the first sale are not shown. The notice dated 4.1.1995 proposed denial of credit that credit had been taken on the basis of documents which were not prescribed.3. The appeal advances as a ground for denial that the invoices do not contain particulars such as name and address of jurisdictional Collector, mode of despatch etc. Now, so far as the invoices are concerned, these were not the allegations in the notices dated 16.1.1995 and 31.1.1995. So far as these notices are concerned, therefore the...

Tarchem Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) denying the modvat credit taken on alkyl benzene.2. Appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have perused the appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. The collector (Appeals) has held that liner alkyl benzene at the relevant time was not included in the table to notification 177/86 issued under Rule 57A and specified the inputs and final products for the purpose of taking modvat credit. He has therefore denied the credit.4. The appeal seeks to claim that the product was in fact specified in the notification, but I am unable to find anything in the appeal that supports this claim. I am not able to find, after reading the grounds of appeal, that the Collector (Appeals)'s contention that the product was not specified in the notification is incorrect.5. The appeal also claims that the notice dated 18.8.1987 to recover the credit taken on 16.2.1987 was barred by limitation. The judgment of the Supreme C...

Aslam Noor Mohammed and Madan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with consent of both sides.2. The two appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by the two respondents before him.3. One of the contention that is raised before me is that the documents upon which reliance was placed by the department had not been supplied to the appellants. The show cause notice does mention that copies of the documents are enclosed. However that endorsement is made in different face in the rest of the show cause notice. The common advocate for both these appellants had by letter dated 2.11.1998 insisted that copies of the documents had not been supplied and therefore he was unable to proceed further in the matter. The matter is doubtful. However, on the facts of this case, I think it is desirable to ensure that no demand for the supply of documents to the persons concerned. Counsel for the appellants undertakes that in order to ensure that the documents are r...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. I.C. Gandhi Silk Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order holding that penalty was not imposable on the respondent to this appeal for its acts leading to loss of duty leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills v. UOI 1995 (80) ELT 507.2. The ground in the appeal essentially is that there are decisions of the Tribunal holding that penalty was payable and that the Delhi High Court judgment is in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's decision cited by the departmental representative, reported in 1991 (54) ELT 147 was passed in 1990 long before the Delhi High Court judgment. The fact that the Delhi High Court judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court does not have effect of staying its operation.3. Accordingly I take up the appeal and, applying the ratio of the judgment, dismiss it....

Hazari Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to import without a specific licence, goods described as "solar lights". In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view expressed by the Assistant Commissioner goods which required specific licence for import.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and heard departmental representative.3. At the time of importation, the import policy permitted the import of solar lights. The reason advanced by both the authorities is that the important lights have been connected only by means of wires to solar panel, detached from some other equipment for use in these lamps.They therefore concluded that the goods were not solar lamps. The primary objection to this view if that there is no basis whatsoever on which it can be said that the solar panels which were found attached to these lamps were not meant to be part of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Lalubhai Amichand Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The notice issued to the respondent to these appeals proposed denial of modvat credit on the ground that it had been taken on invoices which was issued to the assessee's head office, and had been endorsed by it from that head office to its factory at Sion. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice and held that credit was not available. On appeal by the assessee from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the head office could not avail modvat credit, not having the manufacturing facility. It also could not endorse the gate passes to its own factory, not being a dealer. Hence the very purpose of modvat credit will be denied. He therefore held that it could not be denied. This is appealed by the department.2. The ground in the department's appeal is the same as was in the show notice, that the invoices were addressed, not to factory but to head office of the assessee and the assessee could not endorse these documents to its own factory.3. I agree that i...

Kim'S Laboratories Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector impugned before him, that the assessee could not take modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final product for the reason that these inputs had not been specifically described, but were described in general term such as "bulk drugs and organic compound" etc.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The ground in the appeal is that the failure to declare the specific inputs is only a technical lapse and credit should not, therefore, be denied.Decision of the Tribunal has been cited in support of this proposition.3. I do not find it possible to agree that failure to declare the inputs is a technical lapse which can be overlooked. The object of the declaration under Rule 57A is to advise the department of the nature and kind of the inputs and finished products, so that the department may take appropriate action to safeguard the duty recourse ...

Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT289Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant had filed one appeal E/136/01 against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of two appeals before him. On this being communicated by the registry, another appeal was filed, listed as appeal E/2334/01. That appeal has not been listed today. On it being mentioned by the representative of the appellant, and with the consent of department representative, that appeal and the application for condonation of delay have been taken up along with appeal E/136/01.2. The delay in filing the appeal, on the ground that it was called by a misunderstanding in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, is condoned.3. The appeals are against the two orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the imposition of penalty by the Assistant Commissioner of Rs. 30,000/- on each of the factories of the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant utilised modvat credit taken of the inputs received in the one factory towards payment of duty on the finished produc...

Evergreen Engineering Co. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(126)ELT641Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the copy of RT12 return for June 1995 that the appellant submitted to the jurisdictional office for assessment, the Superintendent wrote "You have taken credit of Rs. 26,313/- vide invoice No. 500529 dated 5.6.1995 at entry No. 645 dated 12.6.1995 without producing duplicate copy, you are directed to reverse the same immediately under intimation to this office." 2. The appellant appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that the jurisdictional Superintendent was not the proper officer to demand duty and that no notice had been issued. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without considering this point.3. If this endorsement on the RT12 return is considered to be an order, as the appellant has taken it, it has been passed without issue of the notice. If it is treated to be a notice for payment of duty, it is barred by limitation. The credit was taken on 12.6.1995 and RT12 returns bearing the same remark reached the appellant on 15.1.1996. In any cas...