Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Coen Bharat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT175Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of hot area generator, manufactured by the appellant before us. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the classification of these goods under Heading 73.22 of the Tariff, dismissing the claim by the manufacturer for classification under Heading 8419.00 2. Before considering the contention of the parties, it would be desirable to reproduce the headings under consideration. "73.22 Radiators for central heating, not electrically heated, and parts thereof, of iron and steel; air heaters and hot air distributors which can also distribute fresh or conditioned air, not electrically heated, incorporating a motor-driven fan or blower, and parts thereof, of iron and steel. 84.19 Machinery, plant or laboratory equipment, whether or not electrically heated, for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature such as heating, cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, ste...

Varun Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT89Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are taken up for hearing. Penalty imposed on the appellants is paid. In the impugned orders the adjudicating authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs, Nava Sheva, has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- in each case and fine of Rs. 2 lakhs on the ground that the imported goods do not come within the parameters fixed under ISRI Code, i.e. Taldork and Taldon. In Appeal C/604/01, the question involved is about the import of goods covered under Taldork which has been defined in the pamphlet issued by Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., i.e. Scrap Specification Circular 2001. In the other case, i.e.Appeal C/556/01 the goods involved were also taldork and Taldon. The case of the department is that the goods imported do not come within the parameters fixed under the definition of Taldork and Taldon. During the course of the argument, my attention was drawn to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Alex Cables Ltd. and Arfin Enterprises Ltd. v. CC (Appeals C/1...

Candico (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The predeposit of duty of Rs. 1,37,761.70 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is waived and recovery stayed and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of both sides. Modvat credit of the amount above mentioned has been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the credit was taken on the strength of Customs copy of bill of entry.2. I find that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v.SRF Limited [2000 (36) RLT 90 (CEGAT)] the Tribunal has held that photocopy of bill of entry duly attested by Customs is acceptable as valid duty paying document for the purpose of availment of modvat credit. Following the ratio thereof I uphold that the appellants are entitled to credit of the amount in question and hence set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. K.R. Sisodiya

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT591Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The captioned reference applications seek reference under Section 35(G)(1) of the Central Excise Act the following question of law to the Hon'ble Gujarat high Court: "In a case where goods were chargeable too Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, (for short 'the Additional Duties Act'), whether the imposition of penalty and levying of fine in lieu of confiscation under Central Excise Act, 1944 was unlawful, when Section 3 of the Additional duties Act is expressive enough to make all provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules applicable, if levy and - Collection of duties of excise?" 2. In the impugned order, the question involved is of levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee for violation of the provisions of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.The tribunal by its order dated 23.10.1998 following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills (1995 (80) ELT 507) held that the penalty cann...

Mastan TIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT381Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both the sides on the application, the appeal was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of Predeposit of Rs. 1,59,714.42 and penalty of Rs. 50,000.00.2. The Appellants were working under an exemption notification pertaining to Small Scale Sector Industries from 1.04.94 to 31.10.99.With effect from 01.01.99 they opted for the Modvat scheme, for persons entering this scheme midway. Transitional credit is available in terms of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules 1944. In terms of the rule the assesses files declaration, takes acknowledgement from the concerned officials and then takes the credit of duty paid on inputs lying with him as also the inputs contained in the stock of finished goods. It is presumed and expected that the authority would conduct a check to verify the declaration. This would best be done by examining the physical stock. The claim of the appellants is that they had made a statement that the said stock contained only of Printing Inks, tin works and ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil and Ssk Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Following some objection raised by the audit, an communicated to him, the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of the respondent, wrote to it asking to reverse modvat credit of Rs. 39,575/- which it stated was wrongly taken. He issued a reminder and subsequently, a letter, which is the subject matter of this appeal. In that letter, he has once again requested for reversal of the credit, and said, "if the amount of 39,575/- is not debited within two days from the receipt of this letter action under C.Ex. Rules will be initiated against you which may please be noted." The assessee appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) said "The appellants have been asked to reverse the credit in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice under Rule 57U has been issued to them nor any personal hearing has been granted to them. In view of this letter, the letter issued by the Superintendent asking the appellants to rever...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gal Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has over ruled the objection of the department to availment of modvat credit on invoices not bearing pre printed serial number. On hearing both sides and nothing that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the CBEC Circular No. 180/14/96-CX, dt. 7.3.1996 which states that invoices numbered with the help of automatic numbering machine may be accepted for the purpose of availment of credit and the invoices on the basis of which the respondents took the credit the numbers put on them by numbering machine, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly upheld the same and reject the appeal.2. The Cross-Objections are in the nature of comments on the appeal filed by the Revenue and are therefore disposed of as not required....

Atlantic Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT324Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present appeals have been filed against the decision of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Goa, made in Order-in-Original No. 13/C/C.EX/GOA/94 dated 30.9.1994 whereunder he had confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 72,33,351.90. He also imposed penalty on the assessee of Rs. 20 lakhs under Rule 173Q(i) of the Central Excise Rules. By the said order, he also imposed a penalty on the director of the assessee company, Shri V.K. Jain, of Rs. 5 lakhs under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules against which an Appeal E/4263/95 was filed.2. Shri V.K. Jain who has filed the said appeal No. E/4263/95 had availed KVSS and Form No. 3 was issued by the designated authority on 11.5.1999. Hence this appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.3. The assessee appellant in Appeal E/4262/95 is a manufacturer of various types of yarn falling under chapters 52 and 55 of the CETA, 1985. The appellant procured one of the raw materials called sub-standard polyester fibre. One of the suppliers of...

Narhari Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications relate to two appeals both arising out of the same order of the commissioner (Appeals). These are therefore disposed of by this common order.2. On hearing both the sides on the applications I find that the issue can be finally decided. The appeals are therefore taken up for disposal on granting waiver of predeposit of penalty.3. The appellants were operating under the Modvat scheme. They went out of the scheme and took benefit of alternate scheme. Later once again, they came back to the modvat scheme. On return they did not file any declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The assistant commissioner disallowed the Modvat Credit on the ground that no declaration had been filed. He did this in the face of the 2 orders of the CEGAT in the case of Sure Safe Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. [1996 (83) ELT 328] and in the case of Wox Coolers Pvt. Ltd. [1993 (63) ELT 637.] The Commissioner Appeals upheld the orders citing tribunal decision. In the case of M/s. Signs...

Balwant H. Ranawat Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT295Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that search of the premises of M/s.Acid Factory, Dahisar (East), Mumbai during the midnight of 5/6 December, 1991 resulted in the recovery of 5 silver ingots of foreign origin which were kept concealed in a pit, dug in the premises. Since no documents for legal import or possession or acquisition were produced, silver ingots totally valued at Rs. 13.23 lacs were seized under the reasonable belief that they had been smuggled into India. The 4 labourers present in the premises during the search stated that the five silver ingots were brought in Mahindra Jeep on the evening of 5/12/1991 by the owner of the factory, Shri Chunilal Choksi and his son, Shri Anand Choksi and labourers were asked to keep them concealed in the pit and they were to be converted into Chorsas in the late night of 5/6 December, 1991 as instructed by Anand Chokshi. The statements of Chunilal choksi and his son, Anand Choksi were recorded on 6/12/1991 and 7/12/1991 in which they bot...