Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Kinetic Engineering Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, sells its goods both at the factory gate and from the depots. The question for consideration in this appeal field by the department is whether charges collected by it from its buyers at the depots towards depot operating charges are includable in the assessable value. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd Vs. CCE 1998 (36) ELT 723 to conclude that since factory gate sale price was available, it is that price should apply to both the sales at the factory gate and the goods sold the depots for sale there from.2. The challenge to this conclusion is on the ground that the purchasers of the goods form the depots of the respondents are a different class of buyer. Apart from the fact that the notice to show cause does not allege this ground, we don not see how this claim is relevant. By the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ind...

J.K. Group of Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1184Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. J.K. Group of Industries, the appellant before us, was granted two advance licences, both of which it transferred to Forge & Forge Limited Baroda. The transferee imported goods, which wee cleared under bill of entry No. 10794 dated 12/12/1994. The importer claimed the benefit of notification 203/92 on the basis of the advance licences that were issued to the appellant and transferred to it. The goods were permitted to be cleared without payment of duty in terms of the notification.Subsequently the department issued notice to the appellant. The notice alleged that modvat credit has been availed in the manufacture of the export goods and that benefit of the notification would not be available.3. One of the contentions which the appellant advanced in reply to the notice was that it was not the importer of the goods, and therefore it was not liable to pay duty on the gods. the Commissioner did n...

M/S. Sharad Knotters Vs. C.C. Excise, Ahmedabad-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri S.J. Vyas and on perusal of the order of the Tribunal No. C-II/155-156/99/WRB dt. 13.1.2000 I find it more appropriate that this case is posted for disposal before Shri G.N.Srinivasan member (judicial) who had passed the earlier order. In the meanwhile the revenue shall not take any precipitated action to recover the sums confirmed and the penalty imposed....

Garware Polyster Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 3.79 crores, and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Act are required to be deposited.2. The demand for duty, and imposition of penalty, has arisen in consequence of the finding of the Commissioner that the process undertaken by the applicant of cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of polyester film, in order to obtain sheets of size A4, amounts to manufacture. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that this process of physically changing in the size of the plastic film does not itself amount to manufacture. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE 2001(94) ECR 427 and circular 15/89 dated 24.2.1989. In the cited decision, the Tribunal had held that, notwithstanding the separate heading provided in the tariff for facial tissues, cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of tissue paper, in order to obtain facial tissues and paper napkins does not amount to manufacture. The Board's circular 15/89 has, modifying its earlier circular,...

Shri Yusuf Aboobaker and Mrs. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Andhra

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.These two appeals arise out of the same order and are therefore dealt with vide this common order. The appellants were not present in spite of notice. The appeals are therefore decided on the strength of the documentary evidence.2. Mrs. Balkish Aboobaker was the passenger, who came to Bombay from Dubai. I na formal declaration she failed to declare crude gold jewellery valued at Rs.2,62,080/- and other goods valued at Rs.25,615/-. These goods were confiscated and the penalty of Rs.30,000/- was imposed upon her. The second appellant Shri Yusuf Aboobaker was waiting outside to receive her. In his statement he claimed that the husband of Mrs. Balkish Aboobaker had called him from Dubai and had requested him to meet her. In the belief that the passenger was carried dutiable goods, he had brought a sum of Rs.14,400/- for payment of duty. The penalty of Rs.15,000/- was imposed upon him also. These appeals arise out of this order.3. As far as Smt. Balkish Aboobaker is concerned the finding...

Holash Kumar Mittal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of failure to deposit, pending a peal, he entire duty as ordered by him on the appellant's application for waiver of deposit.2. The issue relates to the determination of the capacity of the chambers in the stenter installed in the factory of the applicant, a processor of textile fabrics. For the reason that the representation filed by the applicant against the order provisionally fixing the capacity is still pending with the Commissioner, and in the light of the decision off the Tribunal in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs.CCE 2001 (42) RLT 429, holding that the gallery is not to be taken into account while determining the capacity of the stenter, we are of the view that this was fit for waiver of deposit of they duty by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. We accordingly take up the appeal itself, set aide the impugned order, allow the appeal an...

Jayant Agro-organics Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs.38.88 lakhs and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.2.The applicant is a 100% export oriented unit (EOU), which was engaged in the manufacture and export of refined and hydrogenated castor oil and other products. The applicant uses furnace oil in its factory for generation of steam to be used in the production of exported goods. It sought for and was granted from 1993 onwards, exemption under notification 1/95 in respect of furnace oil purchased from a local manufacturer of the product. This notification inter alia exempts from duty `consumable goods' when brought into a 100% export oriented unit in connection with the manufacture and packaging of articles intended for export.3. Notice was issued to it on 30.5.2000 alleging that furnace oil was not consumable goods and that therefore exemption had been wrongly given. The notice also invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) for Sect...

M/S. Ashima Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT162Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing Shri K R Desai for the applicants and Smt. Reena Arya for the Revenue, it appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be taken up for disposal. This was done, after granting waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs.1,08,923/- imposed of the appellant.2. The appellants manufactured fabrics. Some goods were cleared by them without cover of excise invoice and also without payment of duty. These goods were confiscated. Shortage of fabrics was noticed in the factory.Duties on the seized goods and the goods found short were confirmed and paid by the appellants. The Deputy Commissioner prescribed a fine of Rs.72,000/- on the goods cleared without duty which fine was reduced to Rs.40,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner Deputy Commissioner confiscated the land, building etc. and prescribed a fine of Rs.22, 000/- for their redemption. This fine was reduced to Rs.10,000/- by the Commissioner. The penalty imposed as observed above was not reduced. ...

Shakti Inslated Wires Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The matter needs further study and the departmental representative seeks adjournment on this ground.3. Adjourned to 11.5.2001. Status quo till then....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Sweta Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from revenue was argued by Shri AK Jain Respondents waived appearance.2. The issue is extremely small and involves modvat credit of about Rs. 749/-. Certain goods were received by the respondents on 11.11.92. The Certain goods were received by the respondents on 13.11.92.The Commissioner permitted the availment of this quantum of modvat on the observation that the credit was utilised only subsequent to the documents.The Commissioner held that on account of the minor infringement of procedural requirement the credit need not be denied.3. I find that similar view was held by the Tribunal in a number of judgments. In one case the Tribunal went as far as to hold that the entire Rule 57G was merely procedural. Although this view was subsequently departed from, the view, that for minor in fractions the substantive benefit could not be denied has always been held by the Tribunal. I also find that the quantum of duty involved is so small that the appellant Collector would be ha...