Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Scope Systems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the issue being decided the appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set asided the orders of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the observation that the contravention was committed prior to the date on which the said Section was introduced namely 28/09/1996. In doing so he had relied upon the following judgment of the Tribunal: 3. The Revenue in this appeal contest this finding placing reliance on the circular of the Board to the effect that where the show cause notice was issued prior to this date this Section would have application.4. The said circular bearing No. 354/118/96-TRU dated 06/01/1997 had been cognisanced by the Tribunal in their order in the case of Boisur Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III [2001 (132) ELT 327]. The Tribunal held that this circular could not have the prominence as warranted in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ranaadey Mi...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Pravara Pulp and Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Assistant Commissioner denied modvat credit amounting to Rs. 81,087.07 holding that the input, namely, industrial felt used in the manufacture of paper was not eligible. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this order accepting the plea that the department had not issued any show cause notice for recovery of the allegedly wrongly taken modvat credit. This order is agitated by the Revenue in this appeal.2. In this appeal memorandum what is agitated is the admissibility of modvat credit on industrial felt. The appeal does not touch upon the ground on which the Commissioner had allowed the appeal. It is a different issue that such cloth was held as permissible input by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India 1996 (86) ELT 613. Even otherwise the fact that demand cannot be made on the basis of an endorsement of RT-12 return comes out in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Kosan Metal Products...

Jayaswals Neco Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 1,06,186/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has allowed the Revenues appeal and disallowed the credit taken by the assessee on the ground that credit was availed prior to the filing of the declaration under Rule 57G.2. On hearing the ld. departmental representative and perusing the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has nowhere held that the condonation of delay in filing declaration by the adjudicating authority was contrary to any legal provision and further, prima facie, the issue is covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs & C. Excise, Rajkot v. Omni Forgings (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. [1995 (78) E.L.T. 282(Tri) in which it has been held that rejected items returned to the factory under gate passes by debiting the duty amount involved can be considered as inputs for the manufacture of fresh final products as they would be melted and converte...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Gujarat Communication and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT963Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal from Revenue challenges the judgment of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the gate passes endorsed more than twice were modvatable.2. The issue is no longer res-integra. The eligibility of such documents stands established by the Tribunal's order in the case of S.B. Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 1990 (45) ELT 701. The Revenue's application for reference of a question of law arising out the order following this order was also dismissed by the Tribunal ( CCE, Jaipur v. Bansal Industries...

Devjibhai K. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides the appeal was admitted for hearing and as taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 26,500/- imposed as penalty.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the present appellant holding that it was filed beyond the period prescribed where no application for condonation of delay was filed. In doing so he has relied upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE v. Thermic Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 3. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the appellant was not aware of the legalities about filing of the appeal. He riled upon advocate who had failed to file the appeal in time and had also failed to file an application for condonation of the delay. Affidavit of the appellant and his counsel are on record.4. I have seen the citation relied upon the Commissioner (Appeals). I also have Tribunal's finding in the case of Chatterjee Systems Pvt.Ltd. v. CC 1990 (47) ELT 88. In that the Tribunal condoned the delay on hearing the plea that th...

D.S. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,23,527/- imposed upon the applicant herein for contravention of the relevant rules. The applicant states that the duty amount confirmed against them already stands paid by the TR.6 challan dated 13.5.1996 and this has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original. The applicant submits that since the entire duty has already been paid, the pre-deposit of the penalty amount may be waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal.2. The departmental representative opposed the prayer contending that no ground for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty has been made out by the applicant.3. On hearing both the sides and nothing that the entire duty amount has been paid even before the adjudication, I waive the pre-deposit of the penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

S.R. Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case modvat credit of Rs. 12,512/- has been disallowed to the appellants herein on the ground that this amount of credit was taken on the basis of the dealers' invoice and that the invoice of the manufacturer was manipulated.2. On hearing the ld.departmental representative and perusing the records, I find no substance in the appellant's written submission that the ground for denial raised in the show cause notice is different from the ground on which the denial has been confirmed. Although the appellants have stated that the department proposed to deny credit on the ground that credit was taken on the basis of the invoice in transit while the authorities below have disallowed credit on the ground that it was taken on a dealer's invoice, I have perused the adjudication order, wherein the grounds in the show cause notice have been set out clearly and from this it is very clear that the authorities below have disallowed credit only for the reasons raised in the show cause noti...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Fainger Leser Valve P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessees/respondents herein holding that there was no over drawal of money from PLA because the assessees deposited the amount by Demand Draft which is treated at par with cash and as a guaranteed instrument.2. On hearing both sides and perusing the impugned order, I hold that no satisfactory grounds for dislodging the finding of the lower authority have been advanced before me and hence I find no reason to admit this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected....

Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC797

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 92,10,343.89 against the applicants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Filament Yarn, Nylon Filament Yarn and Tyre Cord Fabrics on the ground that during the period 1.3.94 to 31.3.1998, the applicants failed to file price lists/ price declaration on advalorem basis and further that the values based on which they paid duty on the said goods were not the proper values as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has also imposed a penalty of amount equal to duty upon the applicants. The charge that the value on the basis of which duty was paid was not the correct value is based upon the non-inclusion of the elements of brokerage and transit insurance in the value of clearances.2. On hearing Shri M.H. Patil Ld. Counsel and Shri M.H. Shaikh Ld. DR and noting that the applicant company has be...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Amalgamated Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE fabrics. They took modvat credit in the RG 23A Part I register on 10/11/92, 11/11/92 and 12/11/92 whereas the declaration under Rule 57G was filed on 13/11/92. Show cause notice proposing disallowing of credit and imposition of penalty was issued on 7/5/93; the Adjudicating Authority by his order dated 20.4.95 confirmed the demand by denying the credit and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-; the lower Appellant Authority set aside the adjudication order holding that although the correct procedure to have been followed by the assessee was to apply for transitional credit separately in terms of Rule 57H, since there is no dispute that the inputs had been received against duty paying documents and credit was availed (utilised) only after filing of the declaration under Rule 57G, substantive benefit of modvat credit should not be denied. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.2. On hearing the ld.departmental representative and ...