Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Viraat Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We waive predeposit of balance penalty of Rs. 5,15,100/- and stayed recovery thereof and proceed to take up the Appeal itself for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. In this case, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 5,75,100/- wrongly availed as Modvat Credit by the Assessee on the ground that physical stock was found short and hence availment of Modvat credit of that quantity found short is incorrect. We also imposed a penalty of amount equal to duty as well as penalty of Rs. 10 lacs upon the Vice-President of the Company. The both persons filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide interim order dated 20/12/2000, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the predeposit of the remaining duty of Rs. 10,000/- (The Appellant had already paid duty to the tune of rs. 5,75,000/- by that time.) and the entire amounts of personal penalties imposed on both the Appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the final order dismissing the appeals for non-compl...

Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT168Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in the application to rectify the mistake in the final order of the Tribunal is whether the omission by the bench to consider a ground in the memorandum of appeal but not argued before the bench would amounts to rectification of mistake.2. In its order dated 11^th June, 1999 the Tribunal considered the grounds that were argued before it by the counsel for the applicant and gave finding on them. The appeal was against the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the claim was barred by limitation. Ground (m) in the memorandum of appal is that the erroneous payment of refund cannot be recovered unless notice under Section 11A was issued within the time limit provided in that Section. Therefore the order is illegal contrary to law. It is not in dispute that this ground was not raised before the bench by the counsel for the applicant and the Tribunal has not given any finding upon this ground. it is now contended before us that failure to consider a ...

Lk Pace India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT429Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner holding that the goods manufactured by the appellant were not entitled to exemption contained in notification 1/93, 38/97 and 9/98 for the reason that a condition contained in each of the notifications, that the goods should not bear brand name of any other person, had been contravened.2. The Commissioner found that the goods bore the brand name "LK Pace".It is the contention of the appellant that the brand name is its own, and registered in its own name. The appellant is a subsidiary of G.N.Laur Knudsen AS, Denmark. It had registered the logo "LK Pace Switches & Assessories" with the Trade Marks Registry under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. He produces certificate to this effect of the Trade Marks Registry. The use by a manufacturer of a brand name belonging to foreign company but registered in India does not attract the provisions of these notification relating to use of brand name.This is the ratio of the judgme...

Dominant Offset Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Mumbai - 38

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT232Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellants are not present, but request for disposal on merits.We have heard Shri Virag Gupta for the Revenue.2. The Appellants possessed a license to import initial accessories spares and other items for manufacture of printing machinery. Parts of printing machinery falling under Sub-Heading 8443.90 attracted confessional duty in terms of Notification No. 155/86/Cus. The importers filed Bill of Entry for clearance under that classification claiming the benefit of the confessional rate. On examination it was found that the imported goods were not parts, but printing machines in CKD condition. As such, the license did not cover the goods. The importers waived the issued of a Written Notice, but appeared for personal hearing. The Collector of Customs observed that the license and the Notification did not cover machines in CKD condition. He observed that the Certificate given by the DGTD only satisfied the essentiality of the parts and could not make the machines importable under ...

Petals Cosmetics Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The delay of 45 days in filing this appeal is attributed to the fact that the applicant's factory is in a rural area in Maharashtra, and the person concerned with the excise matters was bedridden due to illness.A medical certificate in support is produced. We therefore condone the delay.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to comply with the direction to deposit duty of Rs. 2,76,184/- within the time that he had given. We find it difficult to accept the explanation for failure to deposit the amount, that no one in the factory other than the person dealing with the excise matters could understand the letter. Counsel for the applicant accepts that employees of a large factory nearby, in that village knew English; that the village is only three kilometres away from Karad which is a large town that a simple phone call to the proprietors in Mumbai could have resolved the problem. There has been thus failure to deposit the amount. However, we acce...

Vip Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Disposing of an application on identical grounds, by the same applicant, the Tribunal had in its order in application E-Stay-26/00 (in appeal E/31/2001) had, relying upon the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (120) ELT 219, found a prima facie case for the applicant, to waive deposit of duty.2. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty demanded of Rs. 1.45 crores approximately and penalty imposed of Rs. 50,000/- and stay their recovery....

Laxmi Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We waive predeposit of duty to Rs. 11,97,215/- which arises as a result of inclusion of length of galleries in the Hot Air Stenter of the Appellants who are processors of manmade fabrics with the aid of Hot Air Stenter and penalty of amount equal to duty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself since the issue in dispute stands settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwar Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reputed in [2001 (127) ELT 679 (Tri.-LB)].2. Levy of Excise duty of processors (like the Appellants) is on the basis of capacity of production determined in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rule, 1998. The question to be decided is whether the length of galleries has to be included in the length of the Chambers of the Stenters for the purpose of deterging the Annual Capacity of Production. The Larger Bench in the case cited (supra) has held that the length of gal...

Apte Amalgamation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner denying the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92 to the goods that the appellant imported, for the reason that one of the conditions subject to which the exemption contained in the notification is available, that modvat credit should not have been taken in the manufacture of exported products, has been contravened.2. It was the contention of the importer before the Commissioner that it reversed the modvat credit, and therefore was entitled to the benefit of Amnesty Scheme by the Government of India. The Commissioner has declined to accept this. It is his finding that the certificate of the Assistant Commissioner showing the reversal of the credit did not mention the details of the import licence under which the goods were cleared and therefore it is not possible to correlate.3. The representative of the appellant tells us that he will be able to establish the necessary correlation. He produces correspondence betwe...

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appal is the eligibility to exemption under entry 226 of the Table to notification 11/97 to the diesel generating set that the appellant imported. The appellant's claim that these goods are classifiable under Heading 98.01 of the tariff is not in dispute. The exemption contained in entry 226 of the notification reads as follows: (iv) power generation projects including gas turbine power projects (excluding captive power plants set up by projects engaged in activities other than in power generation); 2. The question to be considered is, whether the goods are entitled to exemption under entry (i) at nil rate of duty, as goods required for a fertiliser project, or under entry (iii) at 20% basic duty and 13% additional duty of Customs as captive power plant of 5MW or more. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the generator will be part of a power plant that the appellant proposed to set up which will produce power required for the NPK...

Dholan Lilaram Lulla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ6CAT

1. The applicant, in this case, Shri D.L. Lulla, comes up to this Tribunal seeking the declaration that he is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 97,481/- as claimed by him and for a declaration that the rejection of the claim by the respondents vide letters dated 9.11.1999 and 27.11.1999 being illegal and arbitrary, these letters are liable to be set aside. Directions for payment of the aforesaid claim along with 12% interest from 1.10.1998 is also sought.2. The facts of the case, as brought forth by the applicant, are that he retired from government service from 31.1.1988 and that even before his retirement he was taking treatment for problems of chronic blood pressure, diabetes and heart problem from Jagjivan Ram Hospital (J.R.Hospital) of Western Railway. He states that he had his first heart attack in March, 1987 and further again in January, 1996 and on both occasions had got admitted to the aforesaid Jagjivan Ram Hospital.Details of his grave problems on admis...