Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Modern Engg. Works Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides we find that the applicants have failed to make a strong prima facie case on merits. Out of the total duty confirmed of Rs.2,34,804/-, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs had already been deposited by M/s. Modern Engineering Works.We direct M/s. Modern Engineering Works to deposit remaining sum of Rs.34,804/-. On such deposit being made the condition of predeposit of the penalties upon them shall be waived and their recovery stayed.2. As regards the appeal filed by Shri Richard A.Furtado we direct him to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the penalty..On such payment being made there shall be waiver of deposit of the remaining penalty.In both cases the deposit shall be made by 20.4.2001. Compliance to be reported on 27.4.2001....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indofil Chemicals Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the co-polymer composed predominantly of acrylic and partly of styrene monomer is entitled to the benefit of exemption in entry 5 to the Table to notification 14/92. The entry exempts from duty "homopolymer and copolymer resin emulsion based on acrylic and/or vinyl monomer" classifiable in heading 3905.10, 3905.90 or 3906.90 of the Central Excise tariff. The goods were held not to be entitled to the entry by the Asst. Collector on the ground that only a copolymer based on acrylic and vinyl monomers would be entitled to the exemption and the commodity did not contain any vinyl.2. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the manufacturer that the expression "and/or" occurring in the notification had to be construed disjunctively as well as conjunctively. Since the acrylic monomer predominated, it was copolymer based on acrylic. She also noted that on the basis of predominance the copolyme...

Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT202Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Against the common order passed by the Commissioner II Pune, two appeals were filed by M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. In his order the Commissioner held that the two units were related persons and the prices at which M/s. Vistar electronics Pvt. Ltd. were selling products, would be the assessable value for charging duty from M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner confirmed the duty and also imposed penalties on both the units. Along with the appeals both units filed applications for waiver of predeposit etc. These two applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide single order No. 1318-19/96WRB dt. 22.3.96. In this order the Tribunal directed M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs and also to furnish a Bank Guarantee for equal amount as precondition of hearing of their appeal. On compliance, the Tribunal held that there would be waiver of predeposit of penalty by M/s. Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd....

Panchmahal District Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Applicant is absent and unrepresented. A fax has been received from Mr. Paresh M. Dave, counsel for the applicant seeking adjournment that his flight (presumably from Ahmedabad) was delayed and he would not be able to reach the Tribunal before noon. The stay application came up for hearing at about 12.20 p.m. We do consider it sufficient ground for adjournment. We also note that the matter has been adjourned at his request twice previously. We have therefore read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.3. Duty has been demanded on the ground that the skimmed milk powder manufactured by the applicant is classifiable under heading 0401.13 of the tariff, and not, as claimed by the manufacturer, under heading 0401.19. In confirming the classification under heading 0401.13, the Commissioner (Appeals) he relied upon the Supreme Court's judgement in UOI vs. Food Specialities Ltd. 4. In that judgement the Supreme Court had noted that the judgement (reported in 1991 (...

Heemanshu Horns Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri Dipak B. Shah Director of the appellant Company and Shri VK Choubey for the Revenue, we find that the issue being short, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.43,603.55 confirmed as duty.2. In the appeal memorandum leading to the order now impugned before us, the assessees had made a categorical claim that a sum of Rs.21,802/- was already deposited. The office of the Commissioner (Appeals) sought verification of this claim. The Commissioner found that this was a mis-statement inasmuch as the assessees had received refund of a sum of Rs.11,070/- even before the appeal was filed.Holding that the assessees had attempted to mislead the authorities, he dismissed their appeal out of hand. Hence he present appeal before us.3. We find that out of Rs.21,820/- predeposited, the Commissioner has referred ti refund of Rs.11,070/- and therefore the claim of Shri Dipak B. Shah that the earlier deposit made of Rs...

M/S. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for stay of collection of Rs. 10,90,260/- have denied of modvat credit claim by the assessee under Rule 57Q for the Central Excise Rules, items are as under.Sr. No. Items4. Line Lubricating System (Accessory to Can Line Machine) The Ld. Counsel Shri R. Nambirajan appearing on behalf of the state that the lower authority have denied modvat credit, on the basis of the wrong interpretation given to the provision of Rule 57Q and explanation (a) to (e) of the said rule. He also invited our attention to the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. [2001 (128) ELT 293 (Tri.-LB) wherein paragraph 7 of the judgement the Tribunal had held that the various items which were included under clauses (d) and (e), if satisfied any one of the three conditions prior to 16.3.95, they would have been entitled to the modvat credit. The Tribunal went on to hold that by the said specific inclusion in the notification, whi...

Master Link Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1326Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with the consent of both sides.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confiscating under Section 111(d) of the Act from the possession of the appellant six chain making and other accessory machines permitting them t redeem on payment of fine of Rs.2 lakhs.3. Four out of six machines in question were imported by Kantilal G.Sagar. Prakash P.Soni and Salem Chain and Ornaments Pvt. Ltd imported each of the remaining two machines. The reason advanced for confiscation of the machines by the Commissioner is that they were sold in contraception of provision of notification 159/86. There is no finding in the Commissioner's order that the import of the machine was unauthorised. the show cause notice alleged that the import of these machines were unauthorised for the reason that they could have been imported only be registered exporters. It alleged that although these importers had been registered with the Gem and Jewellery Ex...

M/S. Manish Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application for restoration of the appeal dismissed was called out, none appeared. On record is a letter dt. 29.1.2001 from the Advocate enclosing therewith an Interim Order of the BIFR.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara confirmed duty and imposed penalty on the present application. In disposing of the application for waiver of predeposit, vide Order No. C-II/504/WZB/1999 dt. 8.3.1999 the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as precondition to hearing of their appeal. The Bench observed that the claim, that there were certain proceedings before the BIFR was not substantiated. On expiry of the time given in the absence of compliance vide Order No. C-II/312/2000/WZB dt. 3.2.2000, the Tribunal dismissed their appeal. This application is for restoration of the appeal.3. The miscellaneous application is signed by the Advocate for the applicant but has been verified by the applicant. The repeated claim made in the application is that the applicants...

Shri Haresh Chellarm Gidwan and Vs. C.C. Excise, Mumbai-v

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, we find that this case posses a number of interesting questions of law which required to be settled early. We, therefore direct this case be posted for disposal out of turn in May 2001. In the meanwhile revenue shall not take any precipitate action for recovery of dues....

Laljee Godhoo and Co. Vs. Vs. Laljee Godhoo and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC211

1. We are concerned in these two appeals with whether "compounding" of asafoetida amounts to manufacture.Laljee Gadhoo and Co.(LG for short)import raw asafoetida from Afghanistan.Asafoetida is an exudate fro the ferula plant, and imported by the appellant in the form of latex.It is thereafter compounded or blended with wheat flour and gum Arabic. The process is described in the show cause notice issued to the manufacturer as follows: "The gum arabic and whet flour are blended in the signa mixers.Filtered water mixed asafoetida is then poured slowly into the mixer over the gum and wheat flour.This gets the product ready.Further the resultant product is given a heat treatment by suction in pipes through which a heater is attached and the moisture is sucked out./The power is then passed through a hammer mill where it is crushed thoroughly.This power is then passed through a sieve, which contains magnet balls absorbing any fine iron particles.The compounded asafoetida in powder form is th...