Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Mansi Packaging P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The (sic) in the application for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is only that the order is erroneous.Whether it is erroneous or not will be determined at the hearing of the appeal. The issue relates to classification of goods, subsequent to the classification claimed by the manufacturer having been approved. The Joint Commissioner adjudicating upon the show cause notice demanded duty on goods already cleared. We therefore do not find any ground for staying operation of the order.2. If, as the departmental representative contends, the issue is repetitive, the department may, if so advised, move an application for out of turn hearing....

Menon Pistons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case modvat credit of Rs. 14,700/- has been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the items on which credit was taken namely Switch Board Panel are not capital goods within the definition thereof under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellants have asked for decision on merits and hence I have heard Ld. DR and perusing the records.3. The issue stands settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1999 (108) ELT 47 (Tribunal)] wherein it has been held that control panels used for distribution of power to run machinery are capital goods entitled to credit. The decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Following the ratio of the above decision I hold that credit is available to the appellants set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Swadeshi Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue is the eligibility of the Respondents herein who are manufacturers of CTD Bars, angles and other re-rollable items to the benefit of deemed credit facility, even after they have crossed the ceiling limit of Rs. 75 lacs in terms of Notification of 1/93-C.E. dated 28/2/93.2. Notice for todays hearing issued to the Respondents has been returned undelivered with the postal remarks "Company closed" and hence, I heard the Learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.3. I find that the issue now stands settled against the Assessee by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digambar Foundary v. Commissioner of Central Excise Allahabad, 2000(118) ELT 85 (Tribunal -LB) wherein it has been held that the benefit of deemed credit is not admissible to units whose value of clearance under Notification 1/93-C.E. was in excess of Rs. 75 lacs. Following the ratio of the above order. I hold that t he Resp...

Chandrapur Vidyut Conductors (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Modvat credit of Rs.69, 815.97 has been disallowed to the appellants for the reason that this amount of credit was taken on the basis of certificate issued by M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited which has not been specifically authorised by the Board to issue such certificates for the purpose of taking credit.2. On hearing both sides and noting that in the case of Devi Dayal & Mahendra Corpn. v. Collector of Central Excise [1995 (75) ELT 659 (Tribunal)] (followed by the Tribunal in the case of Ecko Cables (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1994 (72) ELT 290 (Tribunal)] it has been held that certificate issued by M/s. HCL which is a Public Sector Undertaking is to be taken as evidence for payment of duty as per clarification issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs and modvat credit on the strength of M/s. HCL certificate is available to the appellants, following the ratio of the above decisions, after waiving the predeposit of the duty amount I hold that the appeal is enti...

Western Bio Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT386Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. P/109/96 dated 27.2.1996 whereunder he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Satara, who rejected the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the declaration holding that the capital goods were received beyond the period of three months as such he was unable to condone the delay under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules.The assessee is a manufacturer availing capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. They filed declaration under Rule 57T on 9.3.1995 is respect of the goods received during the period from March, 1994 to December, 1994. By their letter dated 9.3.1995 they requested the Assistant Collector to condone the delay in filing the declaration. The Assistant Collector stated that the maximum period for which the Assistant Collector could condone the delay is two months from the date of receipt of t...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Doshi Engineering Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the respondent was entitled to modvat credit on the basis of various documents. These consist of three invoices-cum-challan issued by Steel Authority of India (SAIL for short) for goods delivered from its depot and nine documents issued by others. The objection to the documents issued by SAIL was that it was not acceptable after 30.6.1994 by virtue of notification 16/94. The notice contended that Janson Trading Co. and S.C. Industrial Syndicate were unregistered. The invoice issued by Indian Oxygen Corporation Ltd. was not valid after 4.7.1994 by virtue of notification 33/94. Another six invoices issued by S.C. Industrial Syndicate were not in the prescribed proforma and do not give details as specified in notification 33/94. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found the invoices issued by SAIL to be valid by virtue of the amendment by notification 21/94. He finds the invoices of Bombay Oxygen Corpo...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Wipro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The COD has been filed which is more of a technical nature.Originally only one COD was filed in respect of the common order made in two appeals. Hence the subsequent COD file is condoned.2. The question involved in this case is whether the assessee who is a manufacturer of soap and which receives rice bran oil from Hindustan Lever Ltd., and takes money credit under Rule 57K out of 1000 kgs. They manufactured 880 kgs. of fatty acids. They utilised 80 kgs. in the manufacture of soap in their own factory and returned 800 gms to Hindustan Lever Ltd. On such return they reversed the money credit. The question is whether for 80 gms. utilised in the manufacture of the final product by the assessee, they could utilise the money credit. The matter was examined by the Tribunal and in its elaborate judgment it held in favour of the assessee and against the department. The argument of the department in the application is of interpretation of the rules.In my view, the thrust in which the case h...

Kohinoor Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is for condonation of delay. The Appeal before the tribunal has been filed in time. The application infact seeks condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioners (Appeal) and hence the application is dismissed....

Aryavart Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal is against the penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the appellant for the reason that it wrongly took modvat credit.3. The representative of the appellant does not deny taking of wrong credit but says that it was unintentional. Further, the appellant reversed the credit as soon as it became aware of the credit wrongly taken and informed the department. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in DCW Ltd v. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 381 and two decisions of the Government of India.4. No evidence in support of the contention, that the appellant had reversed the credit on its own and brought to the notice of the department, has been produced. The contention is that the jurisdictional Superintendent was orally informed of the reversal of the credit. In my view, that hardly constitutes evidence of department having been informed. If the appellant on its own noticed that the credit was wrongly taken, it would have expected to write to the department explaining the position and reversing the ...

Nilkamal Plastic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the goods cleared by the appellant were not eligible to benefit of notification 203/92, for the reason that one of the conditions contained in the notification, that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of exported product had been contravened.3. The representative of the appellant contends that he was not given an opportunity of being heard before the Commissioner who passed the order. The departmental representative does not dispute this contention.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall after giving the importer reasonable opportunity of being heard pass order on the show cause notice issued in accordance with law....