Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Vir Alloys and Steel Co Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Advocate for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the issue has been settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Ranadey Micronutrients P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals arise out of the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he had disposed of the appeals filed by the two respondents in this case.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue. We have also heard Shri A. Hidayatulla, senior counsel appearing along with Shri M.P. Baxi, Shri A.Sheerazee and Ms. S.Kher, advocates.3. The respondent assessees manufactured macronutrients. The classification of these products was the basis of a show cause notice issued on 6.11.1989. The Collector of Central Excise passed orders on 6.11.1990 confirming classification under sub-heading 3808.90 and confirming the resultant differential duty. The Tribunal upheld this order on classification, but restricted the demand on limitation. The assessees then filed appeals. The Supreme Court in their judgment later reported in 1996(87) ELT 19 held that macronutrients were classifiable under heading 3105.4. Subsequent to the decision by the Collector of Central Excise 10 show cause no...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Gebbs (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The notice issued to the manufactutrer, the respondent to this appeal, proposed denial of modvat credit on the ground that the invoices of the traders were not documents prescribed under Rule 57G or Rule 57GG. While the Assistant Commissioner confirmed proposal in the notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that these invoices of the dealers were specified by notification 32/94.2. The appellant now seeks to deny the credit on the ground that mode of despatch and the number or other particulars of the vehicle were not shown in the invoice. In my view, this allegation does not flow from the notice. The notice only cited, as the reason for denial that the documents were not "prescribed documents as envisaged under Rule 57G/GG of C. Ex Rules, 1944 read with notification 33/94 (NT) dated 4.7.1994.What this means to me is that the document itself was invalid, as being one which is not prescribed by law for the purposes of taking modvat credit. To now say that while accepting the documen...

Rencal Chemical (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The ground alleged in the show cause notice, that the endorsed invoice of the manufacturer is not valid for taking modvat credit has to be confirmed, in the light of the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Balmer & Lawrie vs CCE 2000 (116)ELT 364. However, in reply to the notice, the manufacturer had alternatively contended that, in any event, invoice issued by the dealers have been issued and produced copies of these invoices. This plea has not been considered either by the Assistant Collector or the Commissioner(Appeals).2. The matter is therefore remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for considering the genuineness and acceptability of these documents. The Assistant Commissioner may adjudicate on the matter after giving the manufacture a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass orders according to law....

M/S. Waluj Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)LC81Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture aerated waters bearing the brand name "bisleri/bisleri club soda". This brand name is owned by M/s. Aqua Minerals P. Ltd. These facts were disclosed in classification list No.2/88 effective from 1.4.1988. This classification list was approved by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector vide order dated 19.4.1989. In this order the Assistant Collector traced the history of ownership of the brand name and how the brand name changed hands under certain agreements. He specifically observed that evidence had been given that the brand name owners had an SSI unit in Delhi and that their turnover did not exceed Rs.1.5 crores. Citing certain case law he approved the classification list permitting benefit of notification 175/86 to the present appellants. The jurisdictional Commissioner reviewed the approval in terms of the authority vested in him under section 35F(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, vide order dated 14.3.1991. Based on the same facts the jurisdiction...

M/S. Bharat Geans Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants make industrial furnaces. The furnaces are tailor-made according to the requirements of the buyers. The size of the furnaces varies ranging between 230 sq.ft. to 3000 sq.ft. with an average height of 11-12 feet. All the parts required to erect such furnaces are purchased by the appellants from the market. These are taken to the customers' premises and erected/installed there. Show cause notice dated 1.2.1994 was issued alleging that such furnaces attracted duty under chapter heading 84.17, that the notices had cleared such furnaces without payment of duty quantified at Rs.41,36,306/-. Another show cause notice dated 4.2.1992 issued on the same lines demanded duty of Rs.32,62,110/-. The total period covered under these two show cause notices was January 1987 to January 1993.The assessees were heard by the Commissioner. The claim advanced was that the furnaces were attached to earth and were not "goods" on which excise duty could be levied. A circular of the department...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Smt. Reena Arya, SDR.Shri Prakash Shah, advocate, along with Shri P. Poojari, appeared for the respondents.2. The assesses manufactured zinc phosphide technical and zinc phosphide 2% RB claiming classification under heading 3808.10 and benefit of notification 14/94. The Assistant Commissioner in his order held that the products were rodenticides and did not merit cover under heading 3808.10. He opted for the alternate classification under heading 3808.90 and confirmed the differential duty. In his order-in-appeal the Commissioner relied upon the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Ultima Search later reported in 1996 (81) ELT 220. On his reversing the lower orders the Revenue have filed this appeal.3. When the grounds of appeal were argued by Smt. Reena Arya, the claim made is that the contested products are rodenticides used for plant protection and cannot be "100% insecticide or pesticides". No contest is made of the Tribunal judgment on ...

M/S. Almet Corpn. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex., Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Following the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to deposit half of the duty, the applicant made the deposit within the time provided by him, but omitted to inform him, with the result that he has passed orders dismissing the appeal for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 35E of the Act.2. Representative of the applicant explains that the applicant wrongly informed the jurisdictional Superintendent of the deposit and failed to inform the Commissioner (Appeal).3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.The appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits in accordance with law....

M/S. Shivani Textiles and Akash Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order pronounced on 27.9.2000 the applicants were directed to file a bank guarantee for rupees one crore as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. This order was made after discussions of the merits as well as the financial condition of the assessees. This order was modified by order pronounced on 23.1.2001 where further period of eight weeks was granted. Today when the case was called out for reporting compliance Shri S.N. Kantawala, advocate, shows us a writ petition copy of which was served on the respondent Commissioner on 30th March,2001. Prayer is made for further time on that ground.2. We are unhappy at this development. The act of filing application in the court on the last available date appears to us to be a pre-meditated act to avoid compliance of the Tribunal's order. Even then we give sufficient time of the applicants to show us cognizance of the application being taken by the Hon'ble Court Posted on 17th April for reporting compliance....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Arjundas Metal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)has held that it was permissible for the respondent to take modvat credit on the basis of the endorsed bill of entry.The appeal questions this finding on the ground that once the bill of entry endorsed to another person, it ceases to be a valid document for taking credit. In its decision in Krishna Insulations vs CCE 1995 (7) RLT 59 the Tribunal had held that such endorsed bill of entry was valid for taking credit.In the case before me and in that decision the entire consignment has been transferred. The ration of the decision therefore would apply....