Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Shree Sanad Textile Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application the appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. The appellants in July 1994 received five consignments. The manufacturers invoice issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a part from showing the recipient dealers name and address, also showed the appellants name and address. In addition the indenting dealer also issued a separate invoice to the appellants. Show cause notice alleged that the credit taken was irregular. The Assistant Commissioner held that the invoices were valid in terms of Notification No. 64/94-CE(NT). He therefore allowed the credit. A review application was filed before the Commissioner. In the review application the fact of non registration of the dealers was brought out for the first time and the claim was made that the invoice was not a modvatable document.The Commissioner accepted this plea and disallowed the modvat credit of Rs.6, 36,139.99. Hence the appeal.3. Shri D.H. Mehta shows the Board's In...

M/S. Newton Engineering and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants cleared ferrous scrap without payment of duty during the period 20.11.1994 to 16.10.1996. Show cause notice was issued on 24.4.1998 seeking recovery of duty of Rs. 1,77,431/-. However in November, 1996 the assessees had already paid the duty under protest.The Deputy Commissioner noted this fact in confirming the duty. He imposed a penalty of like amount on the assessee company and ordered recovery of interest. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the general manager of the company under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. An appeal was filed by the assessee company. The claim was made that the provision of section 11AC and of section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not applicable. The Commissioner relied upon the circular of the Board bearing No. F.354/118/96/BRC dated 6.1.1997 which held that where the show cause notices are issued after the coming into force of these provisions, the provisions could apply.Against this order tow appeals were...

M/S. Torrent Gujarat Bio-tech Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT228Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the application came up for hearing it is found that the appeal itself could be disposed of and it was taken with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The question involved in this appeal is whether in respect of electrical items, the appellant can claim modvat under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The issue has been settled in favour of the assessee in the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, [1999 (108) ELT 47 (Tribunal)]. Hence the appeal is allowed, Stay Petition also stand disposed of....

M/S. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, the appeal was taken up for final disposal on granting proforma waiver of Rs.4,85,540/- and penalty of Rs.10,000/-.2. The appellants took credit on the duty paid viscose staple. This input was not used in any final product. However the credit taken thereupon was utilised in the clearance of other goods. Show cause notice was issued on 8.11.1994 where the credit taken was during the period August, 1993 to January, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner held against the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order.Before him it was claimed that the demand was hit by limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice did not allege mis-statement, fraud, suppression etc. which was necessary to cover the extended period. The Commissioner made two observations. The first was that the plea was not raised before the Assistant Commissioner and the second was that the show cause notices mentioned that the credit wrongly taken was sufficient. In the appeal against this or...

M/S. Mehta Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When this application was taken up I find that the appellants have claimed inability to attend and have requested that the appeal be decided on merits. I do so on hearing the departmental representative.2. In terms of the query made by t he bench sitting on 22.12.2000 Shri Choubey informed the bench that the amount sanctioned has been paid.3. The appellant was operating under the provisions contained in Section E-VI of chapter V of the Central Excise rules, 1944 which provided for compounded levy on stainless steel, pattas/pattis. They had deposited a duty of Rs.40,000/- on 1.9.1995 in the month of September, 1995. Their factory was closed from 9.9.1995. In terms of rule 96 ZGG an application was made for pro-rata refund of Rs.28,000/-.The claim was filed on 21.5.1996. Show cause notice was issued holding that the claim for refund was barred by limitation. The Assistant Commissioner relying upon the Tribunal judgment reproduced in 1987 (28) ELT 584 held that where an advance deposi...

Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The order impugned in this appeal demands duty from the appellant and imposed penalty on it, on the ground that it wrongly availed the benefit of notification 203/92 to which it was not entitled as modvat credit has been on the duty paid on the goods used in the manufacture of the exported goods.3. Counsel for the appellant agrees that, although the show cause notice was received by it, there was a failure to reply caused by inadvertence. He says, however, that the appellant did not claim, and hence was not granted, benefit of notification 203/92. What it claimed was the benefit of notification 204/92 which does not contain any condition relating to taking of modvat credit.4. The copy of the advance licence referred to in the notice has imposed limit no both value and quantity, and the DEEC book referred t the notification 204/92. The bill of entry does not indicate any notification number. the appellant has therefore made out a prima facie case. In these consideration in the hands...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, the appellant before us, placed an order for two horizontal boring and milling machines. The supplier shipped the goods in 28 cases. Prior to their arrival, the appellant filed the bill of entry for the goods, had them assessed to duty, and paid the duty.2. One of the 28 cases did not arrive in Bombay. On such short shipment being discovered, the appellant filed a claim for refund of Rs. 1,92,500/- payable on the short-shipped goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs found that the claim which was received on 25.12.1983 was filed beyond six months from the date of payment of duty on 27.4.1983 and dismissed it as barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Act.On appeal from this order the Collector (Appeals), relying upon the decisions of this Tribunal holding that limitation of six months contained in sub-section (1) of Section 27 would not apply to claims for refund of duty paid on goods which were short landed, allowed the appeal...

Shri Sant Eknath Ssk Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT767Tri(Mum.)bai

1. There is a delay of 59 days in filing of the appeal. The Chief Chemist of the applicant explains that the delay was caused on account of the factory being busy with the crushing of (SIC) the sugarcane.2. Departmental representative contends that the work relating to tax matters including filing of the appeal would not be looked after by the staff of the applicant engaged in the manufacture of sugar.3. On this being put to the Chief Chemist he agrees that such work was being looked after by the accountant and his staff and only staff have nothing to do with the work on the shop floor. The reason advanced for the delay therefore is not acceptable. We decline to condone the delay....

M/S. Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants imported certain goods which required a specific import licence for their clearance.These goods were imported in July, 1996.In his order dated 24.7.1996 the Commissioner confiscated the goods and released them on a fine of about 15%.He observed that earlier also the importers had imported two consignments of substantial value without producing a specific license.He therefore imposed a token penalty of Rs.32,700/- on the appellants. Hence the appeal.2. Shri No.Murlindhar, authorised nominee of the appellants, was asked about the details of the earlier consignments and as to how they were cleared.He is unable to make a statement. He however submits that subsequently on 10.9.1996 the appellants received a specific licence which was endorsed with the validity for goods already shipped/cleared.He however concedes that the goods were cleared in July, 1996 on payment of fines and penalty. Therefore the introduction of the licence at this stage is of no consequence to the ap...

M/S. Gopichand Krishan Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT448Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case charge against the appellants where they have imported 27 MTs of Cassia beyond the period of shipment of 60 days from the day of 7.9.93 date of which Public Notice No. 159 dt. 7.9.93 issued the date has been calculated on the basis of fact that 60 days have reckoned in respect of Bill of Lading dt. 6.11.93 by including 7.9.93 for calculation the time limit.2. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each of the bills of Entry and also fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- on each of the Bills of Entry. The appellate authority has also confirmed the same.3. Shri Mohan Jayakar Ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri J.M. George appeared for the Department.4. Shri Mohan Jayakar states that the goods have been shipped through two Bills of Lading dt. 5.11.93 and 6.11.93 from Hongkong. He states that when we reckon the time in this case that is 7.9.93, on which date Public Notice is issued the authorities below have wrongly calculated reckoning the time from 7...