Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Centrl Excise, Vs. Garware Nylons Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals)has held that the benefit of notification 217/86 would not be available to the Nylon Chips which were used by M/s Garware Nylon Ltd, the respondent to this appeal, in the manufacture of varieties of nylon yarn which were exempted from duty. He has however held that, in that situation, the manufacturer was entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of these chips, for utilisation in discharge of the duty payable on them. The appeal by the department questions this view on the ground that Modvat credit could not be extended with regard to past transaction, where a declaration, where a declaration under Rule 57G had already been filed.2. The Tribunal has, by series of decision starting with its decision in Vivek Rerolling Mills vs CCE1994 (73) ELT 660 held that where the manufacturer initially did not pay duty on the goods in the belief that they were exempted, and was subsequentl...

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Co. ltd. is engaged in spinning of yarn and weaving of fabrics which it subjected to dyeing and other processes. For the purposes of dyeing of fabrics, the appellant employs a machine in which the dyed fabrics is passed through a molten mixture of four metals, bismuth, cadmium, lead and tin. Bismuth predominates, accounting for about 40% by weight of the total mixture. The appellant purchases each of these metals and, after mixing them together in the Stand-fast Molten Melting Machine, the mixture is a molten state. The dyed fabric is passed through this mixture to burn off excess dye clinging to it.2. Five notices issued to the appellant alleged that by this process the appellant manufactured on alloy of bismuth falling under Heading 81.06 of the tariff, and demanded duty on his alloy. The notice dated 7.3.1994, which demanded duty for the period between 1.4.1989 and 31.12.1993 invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under sub section (1) o...

M/S. Sab Nife Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The case of the appellants was argued by Shri M.S. Rajappa. Revenue was represented by Shri B.K. Choubey.2. The appellants imported metal parts and powders claiming exemption under notification 206/76. The imports were made in September, 1991 and January, 1992. The goods were permitted to be imported by Customs. On 5.4.1995 show cause notice was issued alleging that the goods were cleared by the importers on the strength of certificates which were forged. After hearing the importers, the Collector confirmed duty of Rs.30,98,498/-. He however did not impose any penalty. Hence the appeal.3. Shri Rajappa shows us final order no.3148-3157/96 passed by the South Zonal Bench of the Tribunal. We have seen the judgment. The appellants in that case were the same and the facts were identical. In paragraph 7 of the judgment the Tribunal declined to go into the merits of the importability but held against the Revenue on point of limitation. Shri Rajappa submits that the judgment covers the pre...

Shri Pali Narayan Suganan Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant P.N. Sugunan was employed as a cleaner with Air India along with one V.Raghavan.He was posted to clean an incoming flight.There Raghavan told him about a hidden packet and asked him to bring the packet outside.Suguan accordingly picked up the parcel land concealed it on his person While he was alighting from the aircraft, Air India security accosted him and recovered gold bars from his person.In his statement Sugunan admitted that he had undertaken the job for consideration of Rs.1,000/-. The facts of recovery have been corroborated by the statements of the security personnel of Air India.Based on he evidence,the gold was confiscated absolutely and penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on Raghavan and Sughanan.Both filed appeals and stay applications.Raaghvan's stay application was disposed on by the Tribunal vide order no. C-II/279/2000/WZB dated 27.1.2000 where he was directed to deposit Rs. 2,500/- as pre-condition to hearing his appeal. The present appellant has also...

M/S. Govind Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1011Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing Shri M.H. Patil, advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue, it appears that the issue being short, the main appeal could be taken up for disposal. This was done on granting waiver of duty of Rs. 2,79,11,068/- and penalty of equal amount.2. The appellants imported certain goods without payment of duty against three advance licences in terms of notification 203/92-Cus. At a later date show cause notices were issued alleging that in the manufacture of the export products, input stage credit had been availed of. It was alleged that the benefit of the notification was wrongly taken. The duties were demanded. The importers did not file any reply nor did they appear for any hearing. The Commissioner therefore passed ex parte orders confirming the duty and imposing penalty as stated above. Hence the appeal. (1) That the demand under the show cause notice was hit by limitation. (2) That the bulk of the export products, namely bicycle tyre and tubes did not at...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Vip Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT632Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal by the Commissioner is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, holding that aluminium and steel frames manufactured by VIP Industries Ltd, the respondent to this appeal, and used by it in the manufacture of travel goods are not marketable and hence not liable to duty.2. While the department's appeal questions this finding on the ground that although the goods are not marketed, they are capable of being marketed, it does not cite any evidence in support. We therefore do not find any ground for interference....

M/S. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is the quantum of duty payable by a manufacturer who cleared the duty paid inputs earlier received by him on their being found defective. The Collector in the impugned order ruled that although the inputs were received at a payment of concessional rate of duty, on their clearance as such, the rate of duty otherwise leviable was attracted.2. This issue stands fully covered in the favour of the assessees by virtue of the larger bench judgment reported in 2000 (120) ELT 228 (T) (CCE vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd). We therefore allow this appeal with consequential benefit, if any....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Fleetguard Filtration

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the order of the Assistant Collector, has held that the same buyer could fall in two different classes of buyers at the same time and that two different prices were therefore permissible. Kirloskar Cummins, a buyer was buying filter element from the respondent to this appeal at two prices - one for supplies to it is as original equipment manufacture, and the other as a trader. This finding is questioned in this appeal on the ground that the same person cannot fall into buyers.2. On an identical issue involving incidentally the same buyer, the Tribunal had held in its decision in CCE vs Hodak Engineering Pvt Ltd 20001 (127) ELT 720 that in its different capacities as original equipment manufacture, and a dealer of excisable goods, Kirloskar Cummins could fall into two different class of buyers and buy the same goods from the same manufacturer at two different prices....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Dali and Samir Engg Pvt Ltd a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in arriving at the cost of the assessable value of goods manufactured by each of the respondent before us (the appellant before him) the excise duty paid on the raw material used for manufacture of goods should not be included. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Dai Ichi Karkaria vs CCE 1996 (81) ELT 676.This appeal by the department questions are the correctness of his decision.2. The ratio of the decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court in its judgement as reported in 2000 (112) ELT 353....

M/S Grauer and Weil (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exicse and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Jaideep Verma, advocate for the appellants informs us that on instructions he is withdrawing the appeal. Hence appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn....