Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Finolex Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

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 Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial by the Assistant Commissioner of the modvat credit taken by the appellant on the ground that the inputs were used in its effluent plant, which was situated in its jetty, away from the manufacturing facilities for production poly vinyl chloride resin. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the effluent treatment plant is within the bounds of factory. The two plans produced by the appellant - one illustrating the lay out of the factory, its complex and the jetty, and the other showing details of the structure within the factory shows, prima facie, that the effluent treatment plan which is situated more or less adjacent to the poly vinyl chloride production plant maximum across the six metre wide road quite a distance away from the jetty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted one of the submissions that the appellant made before him ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. thermoplastic and Phenolic,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner denying modvat credit on eight invoices which he found to be unacceptable because they did not confirm to the requirement contained in notification 15 and 21 of 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that out of these eight invoices six had been issued under Rule 52A by the manufacturer of the goods and contained all the details specified in Rule 174. He found that two of them were issued by the consignment agents, 'for and on behalf of Polyolefins Industries Limited' the manufacturer. He found that these invoices complied with the provisions of notification 15/94 and 21/94.He therefore allowed the appeal subject to the condition that evidence be produced of registration by the consignment agent under Rule 174.This decision is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner.2. I am compelled to observe that this appeal shows a near total absence of mind. While it reiterates that...

Hameed, S/O Beerankutty Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. One Farooq was apprehended with foreign currency equivalent to India Rupees 51.88 Lakhs. He claimed that one Hamid used to buy foreign gold from one Bhavar and used to sell it for foreign exchange. This money was carried by Farooq for being delivered to Bhavar for a commission of Rs.2000/- Farooq was not found In adjudication. Penalty of Rs.5000/- was imposed on Farooq and Rs.15 lakhs on Hameed S/o Beeran Kutty. This application is from Hameed for waiver of predeposit of this penalty.2. Shri C.R. Hirani submits that Hameed was innocent that he was available and that the Customs have not even filed any complaint against him. Farooq was the principal person on whom very low penalty has been imposed. He further submits that Hameed has no money and is unable to make any predeposit.3. We have seen the complaint and the judgement in the case of Farooq where the proceeding show Hameed's involvement also. The complaint however does not make Hameed a co-accused. The reasons for this behavio...

Kepee Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise holding as impermissible the credit taken on 129 kgs of inputs described as DMA. The appellant filed a declaration under Rule 57G on 1.10.1990. It filed an application under Rule 57H on 6.10.1990 seeking permission to take credit of the duty paid on inputs which included quantity of DMA that were concerned.2. In his order the Commissioner finds that it was not possible to verify that actual quantity of the inputs lying in stock. The manufacturer had not furnished the details of the inputs under process or those contained in the finished products, and did not specify whether some of these inputs are contained in some of the goods which are already cleared.3. It is contended in the appeal that the stock of inputs could have been verified from the relevant documents. This is a vague statement and is not of any assistance. No such documents are cited or produced.It is not denied that the credit was taken on these goo...

Godrej Soaps Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 1.96 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 16,000/- are required to be deposited.2. The applicant manufactures soap in its factory. Samples drawn of soap wrapped in and otherwise ready for despatch are tested as a matter of course. Those batches of soaps which are found to be unsuitable are recycled. This results in the wrappers in which the soap is wrapped being rendered waste. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the ground credit was not available on the duty paid on them, since these wrappers would not get the benefit of Rule 57D, not being waste that arise in the course of manufacture.3. While the counsel for the applicant relies upon an earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that these wrappers would be entitled to the benefit of the notification. He says, that this decision is challenged by the department in appeal.4. The issue is debatable. I therefore waive deposit of the duty and penalty subject to the applicant keeping the credit inutilised pending d...

M/S. Mafatlal Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This applications is for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 1,55,99,751.The sum of about Rs. 90 lakhs out of this relates to addition of cost of account of advertisement etc. when computing the value of goods captively consumed under Rule 6 (ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. On learing both sides we find prima facie force in the claim of the assessees that such expenses which relate to exclusively marketing of goods outside would not form part of the valuation of captively consumed goods. The other portion of the demand confirmed relates to certain raw material on which at the prima facie stage there is no contest. The assesses have placed on record an order by the appropriate authority declaring the applicants to be a Sick Company in terms of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. We therefore waive the predeposit of the duty in its entirity.2. In such a situation the Revenue would suffer on this grounds and may not be able to participate in the recovery. Th...

Hindustan Composition Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Adjournment is sought by the appellant "on account of recent resignation of concerned person of our company". No details have been furnished. The appellant were represented in the stay application by the counsel. Since he has not withdrawn from the case, he presumably still represents it. I decline to adjourn.2. In his order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner whose order was appealed before him that certificates issued by Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India in June, 1994 showing duty paid on the inputs were not valid for takin credit by Hindustan Composites Limited.Although the Commissioner (Appeals) found that as a consequences of notification 16/94 these said certificates were valid for taking credit in respect of documents which are issued before 1st April, 1994.3. The reliance in the appeal on the decision of the Tribunal in SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 1990 (45) ELT 701 is of no avail. It ...

B.R. Mangalur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

1. This is an application made by Mr. B.R. Mangalur, who comes up to the Tribunal seeking the relief as follows : "Order No. DMX-611/E- 10-B/V-3/95-96 dated 1.3.1996 issued by Divisional Engineer E-10-N-VPL-3 at Exh. A to this O. A. be quashed and or set aside, The Order No. DCM/COF/Appeal/MTNL/BRM/JTO/15178 dated 24.9.1996 issued by the Deputy General Manager.(COF), Mahanagar Telecom Circle, Mumbai, be quashed and set aside. The respondents be ordered to give applicant lateral promotion with effect from 21.3.1992 and vertical promotion with effect from 3.6.1994 as Sub-Divisional Engineer and also all other consequential benefits. To grant such other further reliefs as may be just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of this case including costs of this application." 2. The core facts of the case as brought out by applicant are that he was working as Junior Telecom Officer (J.T.O. for short) in Mumbai Telephones, now M.T.N.L. and was issued a charge-sheet by the Divisional Eng...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. B.R. Balakrishnan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Bom)415; (2001)72TTJ(Mumbai)714

Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.In a large number of matters, this court finds orders being passed perfunctorily by the department only with the idea of effecting recovery before March 31, though such orders could have been passed earlier in detail and after recording proper reasons. This is one of those cases.2. The assessing officer passed the assessment order on 5-2-2001, under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1998-99 (previous year ending on 31-3-1998). Pursuant to the said assessment order, a notice of demand of Rs. 12.93 crores including interest was issued on 5-2-2001, under section 156 of the Act. On receipt of the notice of demand, the assessee filed a stay petition on 23-2-2001, before the assessing officer and requested him to stay the demand in order to enable the petitioner-assessee to file an appeal with the Commissioner. The stay petition was rejected by the assessing officer on 5-3-2001. Being aggrieved by the reject...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Hegel Capsules Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent requests adjournment on the ground that its "advocate is out of station and he is not available on 30.5.2001 due to some urgent Court matter". No vakalatnama of any advocate has been filed and who the advocate is and where he is busy is not stated. I therefore decline to adjourn. Having heard the departmental representative and considered the papers, I proceed to decide the appeal.2. The notice dated 23.12.1994 issued to the manufacturer proposed recovery of modvat credit taken by it in June, 1994 on the ground that the gate passes in question were issued in the name of persons on whose behalf the appellant was manufacturing goods as a job worker. The manufacturer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that on merits the manufacturer is entitled to the credit. He also found that the notice was barred by limitation having been issued beyond the period of 6 months specified under Rule 571 the extended period contained in proviso under Rule 57I(ii) not ha...