Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Ring Gears India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We waive pre-deposit of duty and penalty, stay recovery thereof and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with consent of both sides.2. Duty demand of Rs. 28,34,707.33 has been confirmed and penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs has been imposed on the appellants herein on the ground that they had violated the conditions of Notification 203/92 applicable to VBA licences by availing input stage credit. The Commissioner has noted the submission of the appellant in the reply to the notice that they had not availed modvat credit but since they were not in a position to substantiate their submission he has held that credit had been availed by them and hence confirmed the duty and imposed penalty.3. We find that the appellants have now been able to obtain documentary evidence in support of their plea that modvat credit had not been availed by them of the duty paid on the inputs procured by them and used in the manufacture of the final products. Hence we are of the view that this is a fit case for re-...

Bhikhsu Margam and Nirmal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on both the applicants (applicant No.2 Shri Nirmal Jain is the partner of applicant No.1), fine imposed upon the applicant company No.1, and for exercise of inherent powers relating to release of marble imported by the applicants herein who are processors of marble blocks at Silvasa.2. On hearing both sides we find that similar issues had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Asia Pacific Marbles (P) Ltd. v. CC and by order No.C-II/2591/WZB/2001 dated 12/10/2001 the Tribunal had directed the importer in that case to furnish a bond and deposit Rs. 14 lakhs in case and permitted the applicants to clear the goods on fulfilment of the abvoe mentioned condition. Similar direction was given in the case of M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries v. CC by order No.C-I/3291/WZB/2001 dated 22/10/2001. In the present case having regard to the enhanced value of approximately Rs. 33 lakhs we pass similar orders directing the appl...

Vikram Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(125)ELT1258Tri(Mum.)bai

The application for early hearing of the above appeal is allowed and the appeal itself is taken up for disposal since the issue in dispute viz. classification of UPS system stands decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Comr. of C.Ex. New Delhi [2001(129) E.L.T 605 (Tri-LB) in which the Tribunal has held that UPS systems are classifiable as static converters under heading 85.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 over-ruling the earlier decision of the 3 Member Bench (LB) in the case of Tata Libert (2000(117) E.L.T. 817 (Tri). In the present case, the authorities below classified UPS systems under Heading 8543. Following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision (supra) in the case of Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd. we hold that UPS systems manufactured by the appellants herein fall for classification under Heading 85.04 and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants....

Western Metal Inds. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC71

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 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules 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 pro...

Cosepa Fiscal Industries Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT421Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These five appeals have been filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Excise and Customs, Aurangabad whereunder he has confirmed the duty of Central Excise of Rs. 3,00,03,287/-. By the said order he has also ordered as follows: 2. The appellant Standard Batteries was manufacturing at a particular point of time HARD RUBBER BATTERIES. It was felt that due to commercial reasons, the appellants stopped producing the same. In 1984, if floated a subsidiary company called Nachiketa Investment Pvt Ltd. Standard Batteries had entered into a lease agreement with MIDC for a 10 acre plot at Ahmednagar. On 17.9.1993 the appellants Standard Batteries surrendered their Ahmednagar plot to MIDC and requested MIDC to allot the same plot of land to their subsidiary company Nachiketa Investment Pvt Ltd (supra). MIDC allotted the said land to Nachiketa as per the request of the appellants Standard Batteries Ltd. it was thought at that time that Nachiketa would set up a factory at the plot of l...

Vijay Solvent Extraction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The applicant has leased to Vijay Oil Mills its solvent extraction plant in which it extracted oil by solvent extraction, for which it had a Central Excise licence. The licence continued to be in the name of the appellant. The classification list in which exemption was claimed for the oil produced in terms of notification 262/86 was filed by the applicant. The gate passes and RT12 Returns were also filed by the applicant. Notification 262/86 grants exemption from duty to the solvent extraction oil which satisfies inter alia the condition that they produce a certificate by the Director of Vanaspati to have been manufactured by using the solvent extraction process. The certificate that the applicant produced in support of its claim was addressed to Vijay Oil Mills. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals), has held that the certificate will not be available to grant exemption to the goods which on the record the applicant has manufactured.3...

Nucleus Securities Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(151)ELT264(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. 2. In the instant case, the CEGAT has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the said amount as per CEGAT order. 3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that reference has been filed in this court in respect of nine out of twenty persons against whom the show cause notices were issued and the said reference covers the petitioners case as well. However, he is unable to show how mere filing of reference would operate as stay of the order of theCEGAT. Moreover, the petitioners are prepared to give a written undertaking to this court that in case the reference is decided against the petitioners, they will bring back the amount with interest as may be fixed by the Court. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to refund the amount as per the CEGAT's order within a period of eight weeks, subject to the petitioners filing a writ...

Bharat Co-op. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN264(Bom)

ORDERRule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1997-98. Notices were issued basically on two grounds : (i) that interest on investment. earmarked for reserve fund is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT : [1996]218ITR438(SC) and (ii) income from commission, brokerage and other receipts is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i), The Additional Commissioner has approved the proposal in respect of the assessment years 1990-91 to 1995-96 only in regard to the first ground, i.e., deduction of interest on investment under section 80P(2)(a)(i).3. As far as the issue of interest on investment is concerned, the Supreme Court has now held in CIT v. Karnataka State ...

Devidayal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of total Rs. 40,57,774.72 and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. Applicant did not appear nor was represented on 4.10.2001 the date of earlier hearing, or today. No request for adjournment is also made.We have therefore read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.3. In his order, the Commissioner has remanded for consideration afresh by the Assistant Commissioner three out of the five grounds on which duty was demanded. He has confirmed the liability to duty on the other two grounds. These are, first thing, that the applicant took modvat credit of the duty on the basis of original copy of invoices and not as prescribed by law on the duplicates. Duty on this score comes to Rs. 26.32.363.74. The second is that the applicant took credit of duty totalling Rs. 5.31 lakhs on invoices which were not issued to the applicant.4. The stay application does not really address these grounds and emphasizes that the Commissioner (Appeals) did...

WIndia Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 4,98,407/-, out of which it is stated Rs. 1,87,825/- has already been paid, penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- are required to be deposited.2. The basis for the demand for duty is that the applicant did not pay duty on the drawings which it imported in pursuance of an agreement with its foreign collaborator to receive technical know-how from it.The representative of the applicant contends that it was not aware that such duty was payable. He says that, shortly after the imported took place when it was contacted by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, it offered to deposit duty and did in fact deposit Rs. 1.87 lakhs approximately. This, he says, shows the applicant's bona fides . He however undertakes to deposit the remaining duty. He points out that goods had been cleared and the question of paying fine to redeem them would not arise at this stage.3. Accepting this offer, on deposit of the duty within one month from the re...