Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Gazebo Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT648Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty of Customs issued to the appellant before us. He has found to be correct the allegation in the show cause notice, that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92, for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods.3. It is the contention of the representative of the appellant that no modvat credit had been taken, and that this contention, which was taken before the Commissioner, has not been considered. This contention is seen to be true at least partially. In the AR4A attached to the shipping bill No. 445315 filed on 20.6.1994 the applicant had filed a declaration that modvat credit has not been availed of. Further, in the corresponding shipping bill 440270 of 31.5.1994, there is a statement that the goods had been assessed provisionally pending verification of the correctness relatin...

Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal is filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V made in Order-in-Original No 10/Commr/V/98 dated 24.12.1998 whereunder he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 9,27,78,318/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount. He has also ordered confiscation of land, building etc and also fixed a fine of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for their redemption.2. The appellants have been manufacturing paper covered copper strips and also undertaking production of the said goods on job work basis. In respect of the job work, the appellants received copper rods/bars from the suppliers which are converted into rectangular copper strips and then insulated with insulating paper. The insulating paper is imported by the appellants and utilised in their manufacture of the final products as well as in respect of their job work. As and when the appellants use the said insulating paper for job work basis they reverse the modvat credit already taken on the said insulating pap...

M.M. Soni Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty is taken up after allowing the Misc. application for early hearing of the stay application.2. The Commissioner of Customs has confiscated export consignments of men shirts (woven) covered by 4 shipping bills on the ground of mis-declaration of quality and value, with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Soni, the Proprietor of the exporting firm.3. It is the contention of the applicant who is represented by the counsel, that he had placed orders for manufacture of shirts i.e. good quality shirts, but on it being put to him, after examining the consignments, he admitted that some of the consignments consisted of inferior quality and he was not aware that the manufacturer had supplied inferior quality shirts along with good quality shirts and on being informed he requested for bringing the goods back to town. She, therefore, prays that pre-deposit of the pen...

Spect Vision, Specto Plast, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Duty has been demanded from Spect Vision and Specto Plast on the ground that the parts of spectacle frames, which they manufactured, were liable to duty. Penalty has been imposed on these two manufacturers and the common partners of these appellants. Hence these appeals.3. The only contention that the common counsel for the appellants raised before us with regard to demands for duty is this. A claim had been made before the Commissioner for eligibility to the benefit of exemption contained in notification 1/93, 16/97 and 8/98. Each of the three notifications grant exemption to goods specified in the table annexed to then, based upon the value of clearances of the goods. The complete spectacle frames were exempted from duty by notification and the Commissioner's order is confined only to parts of such frames. By application of the provisions of Explanation II to notification 1/93 (and the corresponding explanation in each of the other notifications), the clearances of the excisable ...

Heritage Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The miscellaneous application fro early hearing of the stay application is dismissed as infructuous, since the stay application is also listed for hearing today.2. The applicants seek stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has remanded the case for redetermination of the margin of profit based upon market value of Marble Slabs of Spain Origin in respect of goods namely Marble Blocks of Iran Origin imported by the applicants.3. I have heard both sides. I note that the Commissioner (Appeals) have laid down that guidelines of the Tribunal order in the case of M/s.R.B. Enterprises (Order No. 1902/98/WZB dt. 07.08.98 is to be followed by the adjudicating authority to whom he has remitted the case for fresh adjudication However in the light of the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962 which stipulates that the market price of confiscated goods as prevalent at the time of import has to be considered for the purpose of arriving at the a...

C.C.E., Rajkot Vs. Birla Vxl Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The department seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioners (Appeals) Rajkot who has allowed the claim of the respondents for refund of duty paid on electric transformers holding that the claim was not time barred and further holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to cases covering Modvat Credit. The ground urged in the application is that the department has filed appeal before the Tribunal against the grant of Modvat Credit on Electric Transformers and the appeal is pending before the tribunal and therefore unless the stay of operation of the present impugned order is granted to the department, even in the event of success of the appeal (SIC) will only have a paper victory.2. I note that the question of eligibility of Modvat Credit on Electric Transformers has been the subject matter of the Tribunal Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills v. C.C.E. Coimbatore and this decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore n...

Century Rayon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against the decision of the Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai-III, made in Order in Appeal dated 23.06.2000 who reversed the findings given by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Kalyan, Division-I, who by the Order in Original No. 2/99 dtd.22.01.1999 dropped the Show Cause Notice issued on 31-08-1998. In the said show cause notice proceedings were initiated denying the modvat credit on storage tanks under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rule. The AC considered the reply to the Show Cause Notice given by the assessee and held that the assessee had used the tanks in the manufacturer of the products in the factory. The appellate authority did not agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority. Hence the present appeal.2. The representative of the appellant argued before me that the tanks were used in factory for storage purposes. He invited my attention to the decision of the Single Member in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Ex...

Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT441Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai made in Order in Appeal No. RJB/7/M-II/2000 dt. 15-02-2000, confirming the order dtd.01-05-1998 passed the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Vikhroli, Division II, Mumbai-II, holding that modvat on Inn Casting, Alloy casting, Bronze casting used as input in or in relation to the manufacturer of Glass Bottles mould set which were required in the manufactured in the glass bottles would enable them to claim the same before the authority. The assessee is manufacturer of glass bottles. It availed modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rule.During the course of manufactured of the glass bottles, the assessee manufacture mould which was required to be used in the manufacturer of glass bottles. Two Show Cause Notice were issued denying the modvat credit totalling of Rs. 46,449/- of the ground that the said item were not used in or in relation to the fi...

Shailesh Damadia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The department's letter to the appellant threats to sell the goods seized from the possession of the applicant on the ground that they are pharmaceutical chemicals that it would deteriorate. It rejected the request for keeping the sale in abeyance for the Tribunal to decide the matter. This is for the reason that the stay application has been taken up out of turn.2. Having heard the party on the stay application, we propose to dispose of the appeal itself on 19^th November, 2001. Status quo be maintained. The department not to dispose of the goods till final orders are passed on appeal....

Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the appellants is entitled to modvat credit in respect of the inputs which have been used by the job worker in relation to the process made by the job worker on such inputs sent by the principal manufacturer, which were returned to the principal after the process undertaken by the job worker.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper covered copper strips falling under chapter sub-heading 8544 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They manufactured the said products on a job work basis and also on their own account. The appellant sometimes received the inputs i.e. copper wires and/or rods from their principal manufacturer which, after processing by the appellant, are returned to their principal manufacturer under the provisions of Rules 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules. When they clear such types of materials after processing, they do not pay duty as the duty on the final products are paid by the principal manufacturer. ...