Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Luminophores Inorganics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Luminophores Inorganics Pvt. Ltd. on 13.3.2000. In terms of section 35B(6) a fee has to be paid at the time of filing of the appeal. The subordinate rules require that the fee be paid in the form of a bank draft drawn on a scheduled bank. It was noticed that in the present case the appeal was not accompanied by a demand draft in this manner. This defect was directed to be cured vide three separate notices. These notices were sent to the address on record but have been returned. The appeal thus becomes improperly filed and is dismissed....

Patodia Polytex Ltd. and Patodia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether, in calculating the value of clearances made by the appellant for the purposes of notification 1/93, it is the date on which the textured polyester yarn manufactured by the appellant was notified as being eligible for the benefit of the notification, or the date on which the appellant opted for the notification, that is to be reckoned.2. This issue has been decided by the Madras bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Sri Kumaran Spinners Pvt. Ltd. 1997 (73) ECR 894 holding that it is the clearances from the date on which the manufacturer opts for the exemption that should be reckoned.3. We therefore allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order.Consequential relief according to law....

Consumers Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The common issue in both these appeals is whether duty could be demanded from an importer by seeking to revoke the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92 which was extended to the gods on their importation. The show cause notice issued to each of the appellants alleges that modvat credit had been taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods, thus contravening the condition contained in clause v (a) to notification 302/92. The notices invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act on the ground that the exporter had made a wrong declaration on the shipping bill that modvat credit has been availed of. The counsel for Gaurisons says that no show cause notice was received by it and it is only on passing of the order that it came to know of the existence of the proceedings.Counsel for the Consumers Plastics Pvt. Ltd. submits that the reply that it filed to the notice was not considered. ea...

M/S. Imperial Waterproofing Vs. Commissioner of Centraln 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 after granting proforma waiver of pre-deposit of credit of Rs.5,02,245/- and penalty of Rs.25,000/-.2. The appellants are modvat users. Show cause notice dated 28.7.1999 alleged that they had taken credit without filing modvat declarations for the final products namely rubber and PVC blends. In his order-in-original the Deputy Commissioner found that declarations had been filed but observed that the sub-headings had not been given by the assessees. On this ground he denied the credit and imposed the penalty.The Commissioner (Appeals) did not see the ground on which the Deputy Commissioner denied the credit but citing the Tribunal's order in the case of Asian Paints 1997 (93) ELT 198 held that specific declaration in inputs had not been made. On his confirming the lower orders, the present appeal has been filed.3. Shri R.J. Parakh shows me the declarations filed in December, 1998 which have been duly receipted by the ...

Jasubhai V. Soni Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant on the observation that the draft submitted towards the fees was not drawn on any nationalized bank. It was also held that in spite of reminders the appellant had not complied with the directions. In view of the persistent failure of the appellant to cure the defect vide order No.C-II/3287/WZB/2000 dated 16.11.2000 the appeal was dismissed. In this application for restoration it is stated that the demand draft from scheduled bank was enclosed. The Registry reports that no such draft was received along with this application. The application for restoration is therefore dismissed....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Kherani Paper Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT277Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These four applications relate to four appeals filed by the Revenue, arising out of the same common order made by the Commissioner (Appeals). On hearing both sides, it appeared that the appeal themselves could be decided. This was so done.2. The respondent assessees used modvat facility. During 1995 while assessing the returns filed by them, the jurisdictional officers felt that modvat credit under rule 57Q in case of certain goods was wrongly availed of. Show cause notices were issued seeking recovery of the credit thus wrongly taken. The notices were stereo-type. In stereo-type adjudication orders the Assistant Commissioner held that the items did not meet the requirement of rule 57Q and confirmed the demand. In doing so he did not even bother to list the description of the goods and show how they did not relate to the production of the goods by the assessees. The assessees then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) identified the goods as electric motors, gear boxes, commu...

Abdul Razak Haji Ismail Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1157Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide this application a grievance was made that the department was not complying with the directions of the Tribunal. Directions were made to the departmental representative to seek instructions from the Commissioner vide order No.C-II/3150/WZB/2000 dated 30.10.2000. On hearing both sides, order No. C-II/3836/WZB/2000 dated 18.12.2000 was passed putting a time-frame for the Commissioner to come to a definite conclusion of the liability of the Indian and foreign currencies under FERA.2. Today when the matter was called out there is a letter from the Commissioner addressed to the Registry. The letter is dated 23.3.2001 which is reproduced as below:- "Please refer to the above referred CEGAT Order. The Hon'ble Tribunal has observed that the Department has failed to make any statement/say on 19/01/2001 and has therefore taken a serious view of this lapse. However, the Hon'ble Tribunal has granted three weeks time to make the statement/say. In this connection as directed by the Hon'ble ...

Jolly Board Ltd., Mumbai 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. Credit of duty taken on capital goods amounting to Rs.2, 47,154/- was disallowed. Penalty of equal amount was imposed. The amount of Rs.2,20,446/- earlier deposited by the assessee was appropriated. This order of the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner allowed the credit of Rs.2,18,030/- retaining the reversal of Rs.29,124/- and reducing the penalty to like amount. The appeal is against this order.3. Shri P.S. Kalve states that in the absence of establishing that the assessees had any ulterior motive, penalty was not proper. On realising their mistake the assessees had immediately paid more than the amount involved. He requests for setting aside the orders of penalty. Shri BK Choubey on the other hand states that intention was manifest inasmuch as the assessees had taken the credit of the capital goods exclusive...

M/S. Swil Ltd., Anilkumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC109

1. M/s. Swil Ltd. imported ferrous scrap mostly consisting of burnt out motors. These had burnt out copper coils. The value declared was Rs.14,83,772/-. On the basis of specific intelligence the consignments were inspected. The chartered engineer engaged by the importers placed the copper content of the consignment at 2% to 3%. The chartered engineer engaged at the instance of Customs estimated the copper content to be 23% to 25%. Thereafter a committee was appointed which put the copper content at about 9.16%. A fourth committee placed it at 6.31%. The adjudicating authority settled on a percentage of 10 on the basis of a guess made by an officer of the importers. Show cause notice was issue alleging that the goods were liable to confiscation under sections 111(1) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 that the value was required to be enhanced to Rs.24,25,157/- and that penalties were liable to be imposed on the importers and their two officers namely Anilkumar Parasrampuria and C.V. S...

Shri Jamshri Ranjitsinghji Spg. and Vs. Commissioner Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether Control Panels Distribution Boards, Switch Board Panel, Capacitor, Air Compressor, Starter digital Auto Span, Erection Crane, Bust Duct etc. do qualify as Capital Goods under Rule 57Q and would be eligible for Modvat Credit? 2. The representative of the party fairly concedes that in respect of erection crane that it cannot be granted the benefit of the Rule 57 Q.He invited our attention to the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. [2001 (128) ELT 293 (Tri.-LB)] which affirms the judgement of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [1999 (108) ELT 47 (Tribunal)].3. As far as the erection crane is concerned he invited my attention to the Division Bench judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of SIV Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2001 (129) ELT 48 (Mad.).4. I have considered the submissions in ...