Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Niranjan H. Deliwala Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the said stay application, the issue being small the appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-.2. The order in original dealt with three units, Fluid systems Incorporate. Rotodel Pumps and Gears Pvt. Ltd., and Dell Engineers Pvt.Ltd. as also with Niranjan Deliwala. Deliwala was the proprietor of the first named unit, Director of the second named unit and the Managing Director of the third named unit. Duties were confirmed from the three concerns and penalties were imposed upon them as also on the present appellant. The present appellant filed appeals against the order on behalf of the three Companies within the time prescribed. In each of the appeals in the proforma the penalty imposed upon himself was also mentioned. The appeal papers contained case law to support his contention that penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules could not be imposed upon him. These appeals were filed on 15/02/2...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Deluxe Laxmi Paper Plast Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the department by filing the present appeal, objects to the extension of modvat credit of Rs.23,545/- on the basis of invoice No.55 dt. 19.12.94 issued by a dealer who did not own a godown at his registered premises in view of the fact as per Trade Notice No. 72/94 dt. 8.12.94, dealer who has been registered should have proper business premises.2. On hearing both sides and noting that this is a requirement not of the rules, but of a trade notice, and further noting that invoice in question has been issued only 10 days after the issue of the Trade Notice, thus not giving sufficient time to dealers to acquire a godown, and further noting that technical breach of trade notice cannot a granted for denied of modvat credit I hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly extended credit amount of the question, I uphold the impugned and reject the appeal....

Comet Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein were engaged in the manufacture of Thinners and Solvents falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were clearing the same on payment of duty. In 1985 they came to know that the goods in question were exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 179/99 dt.18.6.77 as the same were being manufactured without the aid of power.They filed a classification list in August 1985 claiming exemption under the above mentioned notification and the same was approved on 20.11.1985, extending the benefit thereof on 24.12.1985. The appellants filed claim for refund of Rs. 1,22,566.85 being the duty paid by them during the period 30.4.83 to 18.8.85. The claim was proposed to be rejected on the ground of time bar. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation and further on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the duty was being paid under protest. The ...

The Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are the applications for waiver of predeposit of total amount of Rs. 3,55,976/- which represents the amount of modvat credit disallowed by the authorities below on Raw Steel Castings, Unamachined castings and bars on the grounds that these items are used after extensive process of machining within applicant's units in order to obtain the desired profile before use as part and component of machines.2. On hearing both sides and noting the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE, Kanpur [2001 (45) RLT 660 (CEGAT-Del.)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [1999 (111) ELT 830 (Tribunal)], I hold that a prima facia case for waiver has been made out by the applicants since the above two decisions prima facie hold that items such as raw or unmachined castings are to be treated as capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q of the Cental Excise Rules, 1944. I accordingly waive the predeposit of duty and stay recovery threoof pending these appeals....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gan Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending modvat credit on the strength of subsidiary certificates showing delivery of the inputs covered thereunder the respondents, even though there was no specific endorsement by M/s.Warren Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the respondents.2. On hearing both sides and noting that the subsidiary certificate themselves show that the inputs were delivered to the respondents and further noting that there is no dispute regarding duty paid of input (SIC) in question I hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Deluxe Lami Paperplast Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the respondents opted out of the modvat scheme with effect from 1.3.1994. Since there was no balance in their RG 23A Part-II for the stock of inputs lying on 28.12.1993 they paid the duty through their PLA. On 13.6.1994 they opted for modvat credit and accordingly applied for the credit in terms of Rule 57H on the stock of inputs and semi-finished products. Since on some of the inputs and semi-finished products the duty was paid by showing the invoices addressed to themselves, modvat was sought to be denied. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- his order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.2. I have heard both sides. Since the appellants had earlier availed modvat credit in respect of inputs and the credit was reversed by payment of duty through PLA, the inputs and part of the inputs contained in the semi-finished goods became duty paid. In view of this and further in view of the fact that it...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Kopran Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT92Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue seeks condonation of delay of 35 days in preferring the above appeal. The grounds for the delay are explained as delay in obtaining various documents/records and. connected papers from divisional ffice delayed the processing of the file. We find that the only papers that have been filed are the adjudication order and the impugned order-in-appeal. The office of the Assistant Commissioner is situated at Belapur as well as the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is also in the same premises. In similar situation, in more than one case, the Tribunal had held that no ground for condonation has been made out.2. No ground for condonation is made out and we dismiss the COD application. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as time barred....

Squaredeal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT143Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants took deemed credit in terms of the order Nos.342/1/88-TRU dated 01/06/1990 and 12/07/1990. The orders contained a clause that where any inputs were clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid or had availed exemption from duty or were chargeable to nil rate of duty such credit could not be taken. On a study of the invoices under which the deemed credit was taken it was found that certain invoices were issued by M/s. Deepal Alloys who were clearing such inputs without payment of duty in terms of Notification 180/88-CE dated 13/05/1988. The Commissioner denied the modvat credit and confirmed the duty of Rs. 56,099.90 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. He upheld the application of extended period on the ground in spite of the knowledge of the fact that the goods were cleared without payment of duty by the manufacturer they had taken modvat credit. Hence the appeal.3. In the appeal memorandum reliance is placed on the judgment reported in 1992 (60) ELT 342 [Auto Pi...

Tristar Manufacturing Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant claimed clearance of the secondary defective CRGO electrical steel sheets under the strength of two REP licences dated 28/07/1990 and 16/09/1991 respectively. The Commissioner of Customs held that the licences were not sufficient to cover the goods on the following logic. "8. The items covered under the Bills of Entry filed by the clearing Agents for the imports by M/s. Tristar Manufacturing Co. are secondary defective CRGO Electrical Steel sheets. These items are covered under para 170 in the Appendix-2 B of AM 1990-93 Import Policy. Thus these imports are to covered by the REP licences produced by the importer as these imports have taken place when the 1990-93 Policy had come into existence and operation. Anything which is inconsistent with the 1990-93 Policy and imported when the said Policy is in operation will not be valid for import." 2. In this belief he ordered confiscation of the goods but permitted redemption on payment of fine and also imposed penalty on th...

Michael and Michael Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

This appeal was posted for admission. Appellants have requested for cancellation of the hearing on the ground that the appeal was disposed of by Commissioner (Appeal) 2. It is clear that the appellants are under a wrong impression. The facts being clear this appeal is taken up for disposal.3. The Appellants took Modvat credit on the strength of extra copy of the invoices. At the material time duplicate copy of transporter was the modvatable document. The Assistant Collector ordered reversal.Before the Commissioner (Appeals), It was claimed that the duplicate copy was misplaced. The original copy was available which could be taken on record. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the denial and hence the appeal.4. The appellant claimed that they have produced sufficient alternative evidence that the credit was available. It was claimed that the suppliers had given a certificate that the invoice was issued only to the present Appellants. Appellants have also filed an indemnity bond.5. In thes...