Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Vinod N. Rathod Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application filed under Section 129E of the Customs Act for waiver of penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. It would appear that some time in August, 1997 the appellant purchased gold from one Phoolchand Jain, proprietor of K.K. Chains, a shop owned by the said Phoolchand Jain. It is the case of the appellant that he had gone there to collect the invoice or voucher evidencing the sale of the foreign marked gold sold by the said Phoolchand Jain in favour of the appellant. The case of the appellant is that at the time when he want there to collect the evidence of payment of duty he was apprehended. In similar circumstances, stay has been granted by the Tribunal....

Wonder Weld Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT81Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal itself has been taken up for disposal, after waiving pre-deposit.2. The question involved in this case as revealed in the show cause notice is that the assessees have neither obtained permission from the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction over their factory nor have they filed any declaration before the Assistant Collector as required under paragraph 2 of notification 214/6. Thereby they have violated the procedure of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, as it was existing then. The show cause notice does not dispute that the inputs which were received went directly to the job worker and the job worker after processing have returned the same to the assessee and the same was utilised in the manufactured of the final product. The show cause notice was replied by the assessee dated 5.2.1988 and it was adjudicated on 29.9.2000 after 12 years and by the Order-in-Original No. 318/Dem/2K dated 23.10.2000 the Deputy Commissioner (Tech), Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I...

Rabiya Mukaddam Karim and Abdul Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals have come up for admission. The case against the appellants is that they brought in Electronic goods textiles wrist watches from hongkong and the goods brought in by them have been confiscated, the wrist watches have been confiscated with option to redeem on payment of fine of 60,000/- imposed on each appellant by the Joint Commissioner, which has been reduced to Rs.40,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals). Having regard to the submission that the appellants had gone abroad for collecting money for medical treatment of Smt. Rabiya. I admit this appeal. Since the appellants only plead for reduction in the quantum of penalty due to their financial position, I waive requirement of predeposit of penalty by both appellants and at this stage itself reduce the penalty imposed upon each of them to Rs.20,000/-. Subject to this modification by reduction in penalty amount impugned order is upheld and appeals rejected.)...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue has filed the above appeals against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has extended modvat credit taken by the respondents herein on the strength of endorsed bill of entry. The objection of the Revenue is that such endorsed bills of entry are not accompanied by a subsidiary gate pass. On hearing both sides and perusing the documents in question I find that the bills of entry on the strength of which the respondents have taken credit on inputs imported by M/s. Hetampuria Textiles and sold entirely to the respondents directly from the Customs Dock area (sic) contained the endorsement that importers have not availed of modvat credit on the said inputs and that the entire consignment has been cleared to the respondents. In these circumstances the Circular No. 179/13/96-CX dt.29.2.1996 of the Ministry of Finance wherein it is setout that the imported goods can be directly transferred from the Customs dock area to a manufacturer by the importer on a declaration ...

Seam Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before his of failure to deposit the duty amount that he has ordered.2. The representative of the applicant says that an application fro modification of that order, which was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), was not considered. Therefore, the order dismissing the appeal for default is liable to be set aside. He however undertakes that the amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs that the Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered will be deposited within three weeks from to day.3. Taking note of this offer, and noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the application for modification, I take up the appeal itself for disposal. If the amount in question is paid within three weeks from to day, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, on evidence to that effect being produced before him within a further period of a week, take up and dispose of the appeal on merits. if the amount is not so paid, the appeal befo...

Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In that order, he has confirmed the denial by the Assistant Commissioner of the modvat credit that the appellant taken of, on the ground that the dealers who issued the invoices were not authorised or appointed by the manufacturers whose goods were supplied to the appellant.2. The representative of the appellant contends that, at the relevant time, it was not provided in the rules that such dealers should be authorised or appointed by the manufacturer and cites the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Meerut v. Uttam Industries Engineering Pvt Ltd 1997 (89) ELT 87.3. The departmental representative reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).4. In the decision of the Tribunal, it noted that there was no requirement of appointment or authorisation by manufacturer of a dealer. This being the case, the ground for denial of the credit is not valid....

Haidery Tines Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that prior to the passing of the impugned order by the Commissioner the proprietor of M/s.Haidery Tins, expired and the present appeal has been filed by his widow who is his legal representative. The impugned order is an order of confiscation of 127.24 MTS. of Tinplate coils imported by M/s.Haidery Tins with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.5 lakhs, enhancement of the value of the goods imported and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the importers. Since the penalty is in the nature of a personal penalty as a proprietary concern has no legal existence apart from proprietor who has expired, the question of recovery of the penalty from the legal representative does not arise and the stay application therefore becomes infracts and is dismissed as such.2. The prayer for early hearing is allowed having regard to the fact that the appellant is legal representative of the individual importer and further having regard to the f...

Eltron India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, made in Order-in-Original dated 22.10.1991. A show cause notice was issued charging the appellant that they had procured electrical resistance wires which is exclusively required and used in the manufacture of electric furnaces. However the appellant had utilised the modvat credit on the said input and utilised them for clearance for another product called fan guards. The RT12 for the period from 30.4.1986 to 25.4.1989 were duly assessed without any objection. The show cause notice was resisted and one of the points stressed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority is the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Kosan Metal Products and Andaman Timber Industries. The adjudicating authority by the impugned order relies on the declarations filed by the assessee regarding inputs and final products and derives support for the same for confirmation of the de...

Glaxo India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT248Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal the denial of Modvat credit on several grounds was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal).2. Credit of Rs. 14,093/- taken on the strength of duplicate copy of gate pass dt. 31.03.94 was denied on the ground that the manufacturer had cut the word "Original" and had put the word "Duplicate for Carrier" on the Gate Pass. Assessee claim that with effect from 01.04.94 Gate Passes were replaced by invoices. Earlier; the original copy of the gate pass was modvatable document. This situation created confusion in the mind of the suppliers. They cut the word "Original" and replaced it with "Duplicate". The original copy was also available and was shown to the Assistant Collector. This plea was not accepted by the Commissioners (Appeals) relying upon the tribunal judgment reported 1994 24 ETR 571. I find that such a rigid approach was not required in all aspects of the modvat scheme. From the filing of the declaration to the description of the inputs in the invoice and in all othe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Auto Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is the admissibility of modvat credit on gate passes issued prior to 1.4.1994 but endorsed subsequently and credit taken before 30.6.1994 by the respondents.2. On hearing Ld. DR, I find that the issue stands settled by the Tribunal in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawalla [1996 (83) ELT 620 (T)] holding that credit is admissible in such a situation. The above decision of the Tribunal has been followed in a series of cases.Following the ratio thereof I hold that credit has been rightly extended to the respondents herein, uphold the impugned order and reject this appeal....