Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Fenoplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application, it appeared that at this stage the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.This was done after granting performa waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 65,580/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- 2. The appellant received a Value Based Advance Licence on 18.4.94. In pursuance of a request earlier made, the licence was converted into a Quantity Based Advance Licence on 1.3.95. In the meanwhile on 29.1.94 some goods were imported without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 65,580/-. Show cause notice was issued alleging that in the manufacture of export goods, input stage credit had been availed of thereby contravening the provisions of Notfn. No. 203/92-Cus. The importers placed DGFT letter dated 21.10.94 witnessing conversion from Value Based to Quantity Based. The Commissioner held that the letter was in the form of a query and did not certify the conversion. On this ground, he confirmed the duty and imposed the penalty.3. Shri S.R. N...

Shree Hari Fabrics Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT278Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, confirming a demand for duty of Rs 1,89,335/- issued to the appellant on the ground of shortage of fabrics processed by it.2. The stocks in the premises of the appellant were verified by the departmental officers from 6.2.1991 to 12.2.1991. It is on the basis of such stock verification that the shortage has been alleged. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that there was, in reality, no shortage. The officers wilfully and deliberately recorded shortages, which never existed. The letter dated 13.2.1991 of the director of the appellant to the Deputy Collector of Central Excise(Preventive) received by the latter on the same pay explains this. In reply to the show cause notice details payment of duty on the various loss of fabrics which were alleged to have been found short were communicated but has not been considered by the Collector. The incorrectness in the stock taking was brought to the notice o...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. M/S. Amar Singhji Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT443Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These six appeals filed by t he Revenue have the same issue and arise out of the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). These are being disposed of together vide this common order.2. The respondent are not present in spite of notice but have filed cross objection.3. The issue is of interpretation of Notfn.No. 6/88-CE dated 19.1.88.Vide this Notification fents and rags of man-made fabrics falling under Heading No.54.09, 54.12, 55.08, 55.11 and 55.12 were eligible for concessional rate of duty. The proviso thereto reads as under: Provided that the aggregate quantity of clearances of such fents and rags from any factory for home consumption, by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers at the rate specified in this notification shall not exceed five per cent of the total quantity of clearances of man-made fabrics falling under heading Nos. 54.09, 54.12, 55.08, 55.11 and 55.12 of the said Schedule during a year.4. This proviso was interpreted by the Asstt.Collecto...

M/S. Indian Chemical Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides, we take up the main appeal for consideration and disposal on granting waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs.36,31,302/- and penalty of Rs.1,82,000/-.2. the appellants imparted certain gods on the strength of Value Based Advance Licence in terms of Notfn.No.203/92 CUS. The present appellants were not the original allottees but were the transferee holder of the licence. Certain goods were imported free of duty by t hem in February to April 1994. 2 show cause notices were issued in January and March 1999 alleging contravention of the conditions of the Notification in as much as in the manufacture of the export goods, the input stage credited was availed of. The Commissioner passed a common order mentioning that the imparters had not filed any replies, confirming the duty and imposing penalty as mentioned above. Hence the appeal.3. Shri Doiphode, the id.counsel for the appellants states that the importers had changed their address and therefore had not...

M/S. S.M. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.5,47,951/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, we find that the appeal itself could be taken up for final hearing. We do so on granting waiver as prayed for.2. The present appellants and the facts are akin to those which were before us in appeal No.C/748-R/99-MUM (Order No.C.II/2883-2884/99 WZB dated 2.11.99). The export products were plastic buttons which were free of duty and, therefore, the question of availment of modvat credit did not arise. We find that the show cause notice was issued as answerable to the Commissioner of Customs(Export) Mumbai whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Aircargo, Mumbai. The appellants filed reply which is on record whereas the impugned order mentioned that no reply has been filed. It is obvious that the reply was filed at the required place but the adjudication was done at another place. In the light of this fact, we allow ...

Okasa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT492Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s Okasa Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Okasa for short) is the manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. By an agreement entered into on 18th December, 1992, it entered into an arrangement with Cipla Ltd (Cipla for short). Okasa was to sell to Cipla the products mentioned in the Schedule in the agreement for sale by the latter at the prices mentioned thereof subject to a maximum variation of 10%. Cipla was to undertake sales promotion activity at its discretion and was permitted to sell the products in any manner and at any rate. The agreement contained a provision for Okasa to sell the products directly to any other party or department. There were provisions for termination of the agreement at the option of either party. This agreement was substituted on 30.3.1994 by another agreement which contains essentially the same terms and conditions. Against this background, we will consider the two appeals, one Okasa and other by the department.2. We are concerned in appeal E/1309/96 by Okasa with...

indabrator Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC636

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant imported components of machinery and cleared them after payment of duty on 27.3.97. The appellant discovered subsequently that there was short payment of duty, and by means of a post bill of entry paid this duty of Rs. 13,143/- on 1.8.97. The appellant used these goods in its factory, and therefore took modvat credit on 19.12.97 of the additional duty component paid on both occasions.Notice issued to the appellant proposed to deny credit on the ground that it was taken beyond six months from the date of issue of the duty paying document, which it held to be 10.3.97, the date on which bill of entry was initially filed for clearance of goods. The Asst.Commissioner [whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)] found the notice to be correctly issued and denied the credit. Hence this appeal.3. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute before us that the credit taken of th...

Chimanlal Lalahchand Jambani Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Prev)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal was dismissed for failure of the appellant to show compliance with the Tribunal's order on the stay application. In this application for restoration it is pleaded that the deposit was in fact made, although on a date later than that prescribed by the Tribunal.2. On examination of the documents I find that the deposit was made on 20.6.2000, a little-later (sic) order of dismissal. Condoning the delay, I allow this application and direct the appeal to be restored at its original number....

M/S. Mastan TIn Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were operating under the provisions of Rule 173 GG of the Central Excise 1944, debiting their account current at specified interval towards the payment of duty for the goods already cleared.During the period under appeal, on all occasions the appellant assessees had deposited the cheques in the bank. Shri RJ Parekh shows photo copies of the challan as stamped by the receiving bank. His attention was drawn to the show cause notice which shows the date of the TR 6 Challan as the date of actual credit in governments account.He submits that this is an error. On perusal we find it to be so. The Dy. Commissioner held that interest would stand attracted for the period elapsed from the 15th of month to the date on which the amount was credited to the Government accounts by the bank. He therefore, passed order confirming interest of Rs. 1347/- as also imposing penalties totaling Rs.26,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the logic of order but set aside the second part of...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. M/S. Hegal Capsule Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent nanufactured pharmaceutical products. Glass bottles were on important input. Reversal of modvat credit was sought on calculation of difference between he quantity received and quantity actually consumed. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the argument that during filling a number of bottles were broken and that such breakage should not result in the reversal of modvat credit. Against this order the present appeal have been filed by the Revenue.2. Respondents have placed on record a copy of Order No.270/C-II/WZB/1999 dt. 21.1.2000 relating to an identical appeal where the respondents were the same. In this order the Tribunal upheld the point that breakage of certain bottles during filling could not be made. The ground for reversal of the modvat credit. Adopting the ratio of the this judgement, I dismiss the appeal from revenue....