Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Carbon Everflow Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Jagesha, Consultant for the applicants states that the assessees had deposited the contested amounts. In that situation, the stay applications do not survive and are dismissed.2. Shri Jagesha makes an oral plea for early hearing of the appeals.The total revenue involved is Rs. 33,000/-. There is no merit in this plea. Left the appeals be posted in due course....

Press-n-tech Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT782Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application is for condonation of delay of three months in filing the appeal.2. Counsel for the applicant states that the order dated 6.4.2000 was despatched to the applicant's factory and was received by the watchman.However, one of the directors of the Company was abroad between January and June, 2000. After his return he came to know, from a telephone call from the department, of the passing of the order and therefore had the order collected from the factory. The applicant had in any case paid the duty in 1998 before the issue of show cause notice. The only issue is the penalties imposed on the company. (Although penalty was also imposed on Girish Shah, the Director no appeal has been filed).Therefore, on merits the applicant has a good case.3. The departmental representative points out that there is no evidence of intimation of closure of the factory to the department. That the Commissioner's order indicates that personal hearing was fixed on 21.2.2000 which means that despite ...

M/S. Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT290Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In these matters applications have been filed for restoration of the appeals on the ground no notice have been received. In view of the above, the appeals are restored to its file of the Registry and the appellants are given to a month time to rectify the defects pointed out.2. Shri Manoj Sanklecha Ld. Advocate filed the Vakalatnama. The appeals are restored....

M/S. Cummins India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appellants were a party to the order No.CC/PCJ/2 to 25/99/1371 dated 26.3.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai against which they have filed this appeal.2. A number of other Corporations similarly placed as the present appellants had also filed appeals against the said order. The Tribunal had disposed of the bunch of appeals vide their order now reported in 2000(117)E.L.T. 241 (Tri) (Prena Textile Inds. Ltd. vs CC). This decision of the tribunal was appealed against in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pronounced their judgement now reported in 2001(128)E.L.T.21 (S.C.) (Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs CC). M/s.Videocon Ltd. were also one of the appellants before the Supreme Court.Paragraph 65 to 80 relate to the submissions made by them. The Supreme Court while upholding the judgement of the Tribunal in this order had held that the drawings and designs were correctly classifiable under Heading No.49.06. It was held that at the material time the Tariff ...

Kosmos Co-extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant claimed, and was granted, the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 203/92 on goods imported by it in terms of advance licences granted as a result of export of textile manufactured by it.3. Notice was subsequently issued to appellant demanding duty which had been exempted on the ground that one of the conditions subject to which the exemption is available, that modvat credit had not been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods, had not been complied with. The appellant by its reply dated 21.12.1998, seen to be received in the concerned Group VII of the Custom House, contended that it had not availed modvat credit, producing in support a certificate issued by the jurisdictional Central Excise office that it was not registered with the department and was not availing modvat credit.4. The Commissioner has apparently not considered this reply. He says that no repl...

United Phosphorus Limited, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT691Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeals are taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.3. Penalty imposed on United Phosphorus Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer under Rule 173Q, and penalties imposed on its three employees Hasmukhbhai Desai, Senior Executive, Kanubhai Desai, General Manager and Arun Ashar, Finance Director under Rule 209A are questioned in these appeals.4. The penalties have been imposed for two reasons - firstly, that the manufacturer took modvat credit of the duty paid on a consignment of inputs, the particulars of which were not entered in Part-I, RG23-A register. Part I is an account relating to quantity of goods and Part II relates to the duty taken as credit. The Commissioner does not dispute that the entry was made in Part II. He accepts the availability of credit although the show cause notice disputes this. he still finds that penalty is imposable and the goods liable to confiscation.5. While the departmental representative attempts to support the validity of th...

New Look Cosmetic Laser Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT243Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 25,38,340/-.The duty has been demanded on the ground that the ruby laser imported by the applicant is not 'surgical laser' exempted from duty by entry 74 of list 21 of notification 20/1999.3. The Assistant Commissioner, in denying the exemption, has relied upon the definition of surgery which he finds in Butterworth Medical Dictionary as being "that part of medicine which deals with treatment of disease and injury mainly by manipulative and operative methods" to conclude that use of the laser for removal of excess hair, tattoos and pigmented lesions of the skin cannot be considered to be surgery.4. As against this, the counsel for the applicant relies upon a periodical monograph, Dermatologic Clinics, Vol.17, April, 1999. An article in this edition, "A Theoretical Consideration of Laser Hair Removal," refers to the use of laser for hair removal. The brochure of the manufacturer indicates it to be suitable for use in removing p...

Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 17.06 lakhs approximately from Kumar Cotton Mills Private Limited, the processor of fabrics, penalty of equivalent amount, interest of Rs. 520/-, unquantified interest of 36% on amount short paid and penalty of Rs. 1.7 lakhs by Pravinbhai D. Pate, its director 2. The applicants are absent and unrepresented despite notice. The matter was first listed for hearing on 15.4.2000 and it was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the applicant to 12^th December, 2000. On this date the applicants were absent and unrepresented and, on a request by departmental representative, adjourned to 2^nd February, 2001. An application was received from the applicants seeking adjournment on this date on the account of extensive damage caused to the factory by the earthquake. The matter was therefore adjourned to today. In the absence of the applicants, we have read the submissions in the stay applications, other relevant papers and heard the de...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. M/S. JaIn Manufacturers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.392/95(142-RAJ) CE dt. 6.11.95 confirming the Order-in-Original dt.18.7.94.2. The assessee filed a declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules for availing credit of duty paid on capital goods in respect of ABA Portable Platform Scale 1000 Kg. The Assistant Collector did not grant the same since the assessee did not state the actual use of the aforesaid goods in the manufacture of excisable goods. An appeal was filed and the appellate authority by the impugned order stated that the appellant being a small unit they did not require to install weigh bridge but the purpose of weighment is obtained through the machining question. The appellate authority after discussing the point held that there is no condition in Rule 57Q-(1) that the weigh-bridges should necessarily be affixed to the ground.2. Against this order the Department has filed the ...

M/S. Unique Pharmaceutical Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1160Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both the sides, the appeal itself was taken up for final disposal.2.The appellants manufactured medicaments and cleared them as P or P medicines under sub-heading nO.3003.10 from 1992-96. From time to time classification lists were approved and the goods were cleared on paymentof duty. In June 1996, some Preventive officers visited the factory and in the fact of the aproved classification lists declared that the goods were Generic products falling under sub-heading No.3003.20 eligible for clearance without payment of duty. it was unilarterally held that the input stage credit taken by the assessees was wrong and was required to be reversed. In the absence of any proceedings to reditermine the classification and especially in the absence of the show cause notice, the assessees were "pursuaded" to reverse the credit. However, the assessees within the prescribed time limit filed refund claim for the refund of the reversed modvat credit.The Asstt. Commissioner issued the Sho...