Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Indofil Chemical Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT689Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay III. The facts in short leading to this appeal are as follows: 2. Notification 222/86-CE dated 3.4.1986 provided concessional rate of duty for Homo polymer and Co-polymer resin emulsions (emphasis added) based on acrylic and/or vinyl monomers. The benefit of this notification was taken by the respondent M/s Indofin Chemical Co. The benefit was permitted on their filing of the classification list and due approval thereof by the jurisdictional authorities after obtaining the opinion of the departmental chemical authorities. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted of the eligibility of the following products to the benefit of the notification: The contention made was that these goods were not emulsions but were solutions. The samples were drawn and the Chemical Examiner opined that the products were "aqueous solution" of acrylic polymers, synthetic resin based on acrylic monomers and a synt...

M/S Baroda Ferro Alloys and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(123)ELT707Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Written submission filed on behalf of the appellant show that the appellant has been ordered to be wound up by orders passed by the Gujarat High Court.2. Since the appellant firm is in liquidation, as per Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the appeal stands abated.4. Since the main appeal abates, the appeal E/768/95 filed by the Chairman of the company cannot survive. That appeal also is dismissed as having abated....

Jaysynth Dyechem Limited, Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1429Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Jaysynth Dyechem Limited, the appellant in 24 of these appeals, against a common order of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai, is manufacturer of dye and intermediates. During the period with which we are concerned, 1994 to 1997 it sought for, and obtained number of quantity based advance licences for import of materials required for the manufacture of dyes. Such licences are issued either to facilitate import materials required for the manufacture of export product, or permit importation of such goods for replenishment in cases where export of the of the product already taken place, manufactured by it either from imported material or from Indian material. We are told that the licences involved both the types, where the export has already taken place or where it was yet to take place. The import and export was concurrently going on.2. This appellant claimed in respect of the material that it imported under these licences, benefit of notification 204/92. In essence this not...

M/S Suz-dent(India) Pvt Ltd, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No 11/Commr/Ahd-II/99 dated 8.1.2000 M/s Suz Dent (India) Pvt Ltd filed appeal No E/1079/2000 Mum.In that appeal, the prayers were to pass order setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner; to pass any order as deemed fit; and to grant stay. As per the order impugned, penalties were imposed on Directors of the company. Since the directors were not eo-nominee made appellant, applications for stay filed by the company (SIC) stay the penalties imposed on the directors, this Tribunal returned the applications for stay noting the defect that the directors are not appellants. Consequently, appeals have been filed by the directors of the firm. In filing those appeals, delay has been caused. To have the delay condoned, applications have also been filed by those appellants.2. Since the company has challenged the Order-in-Original in its entirety, the delay caused in filing the appeals by the directors has only to be condoned we condone the delay.3. ...

Veena Industries Suresh C Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for modification of the order of stay passed on 31.5.2000.2. In the appeal, the appellant questions the claim of Rs 67,52,038/- of duty and a penalty Rs 50.00 lakhs imposed under Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules. The other petitioners were also directed to pay penalties as per Order-in-Original No 25/98 dated 12.10.1998. The appellants prayed for stay of implementation of the order, and also prayed for waiver of deposit as contemplated by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. This Tribunal directed to make a pre deposit of Rs 25.00 lakhs by M/s Veena Industries and its proprietor Suresh C Chokshi. M/s Vspur Mills Sales Corporation was directed to deposit an amount of Rs 10.00 lakhs, Shri Paresh Shah and Ms Veena Chokshi Rs 5.00 lakhs and Rs 3.00 lakhs respectively. These amounts were to be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of the order.This order was despatched from the office, as seen from the records, on 10.6.2000. Stating tha...

M/S Tata Infotech Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT286Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No NEPZ/Customs/03/60/90/Pt.II dated 29.5.2000. As per that order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs 2,93,68,904/- claimed in the Show Cause Notice.2. The appellant applied to the Development Commissioner of Noida Export Processing Zone for promotion to set up a unit to manufacture computer software for the overseas market. The appellants were authorised by the Ministry of Commerce by letter dated 16.10.1987 to set up a unit for the manufacture of computer consultancy and computer software development for export subject to certain conditions. On the ground that the export obligations were not complied with, the Customs authorities ordered payment of duty amounting to Rs 2,93,68,904/-. The goods valued at Rs 2,08,75,877/- imported up to December 1991 were also ordered to be confiscated with liberty to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs 20.00 lakhs. That order was challenged before this Tribunal in appeal C/357/95 B2. Wh...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Anil Starch Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, allowed the deductions from the price in respect of average freight, interest on receivables, prompt payment discount, ready discount and quantity discount. Against this order, the revenue have filed appeal E/3586/89A.Similar orders were passed by the Collector (Appeals) in the case of the same assessee relating to a different period. The Collector followed the ratio of his earlier order and allowed deductions on account average freight, prompt payment discount and quantity discounts. The issued as to the deduction of interest on receivables was however remanded by him to the Assistant Commissioner. Against this order, the Revenue have filed appeal E/2663/89A. The assessees have filed cross objections in both cases.2. Since the issues are common, they are being taken up together for disposal in this common order.3. The assessee were not present in spite of repeated notices. The appeals are disposed on a perusal of the various submi...

M/S Umashankar Somani Ind. Vs. C.C, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On the request contained in the undated letter of the appellant, received on 12.3.2001 we permit withdrawal of the appeal and hence dismiss it as withdrawn....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indofil Chemicals Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT391Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the copolymer 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 be entitled to the entry by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that only a copolymer based on acrylic and vinyl monomers would be entitled to the exemption, and the commodity did net 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 copolymer ...

M/S. Dura Foam Industries P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Excise and Customs, Surat-i ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of the demand of Rs 6,26,513/- ordered to be deposited, the applicant has deposited Rs 2.00 lakhs with the period.Although time for deposit of the remaining amount has been extended, no deposit has been made....