Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT353Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Delay of 16 days in filing this appeal is condoned for the reasons specified in the application.2. There is an application for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs.55.79 lakhs, and penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC of the Act and o Rs.15 lakhs under rule 173Q.3. Duty has been demanded, and penalty levied, on the finding of the Commissioner that tetrapodes cast by the applicant for excisable goods are not entitled to the exemption contained in notification 5/98. We have heard both sides.4. The Commissioner has denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that they were not "goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in consideration work of such site." He finds that tetrapodes were actually cast at the site made available to the applicant, about 1.5 km from where they were use.d The circular no.456/22/99 dated 18.12.99 of the Board has clarified at paragraph 2 that the expression "site may not be given a restrictive meaning and shall include any premises ma...

Shreeram Engg. Works, Megha Engg. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This bunch of applications have been filed for waiver of duty and penalties as mentioned below. Appellant Shreeram Engg. Works has filed application for waiver of duty of Rs. 122,10,468 and penalty of equivalent amount imposed under Section 11AC. Appellant Megha Engg.Corporation has filed application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 20,000.Appellant Mefco has filed application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- Appellant T.R. Musale has filed application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- being a partner of Mefco and it is held that he has master minded the entire operation. Deepali T. Musale and Shilpa T.Musale has filed applications for waiver of penalty of Rs. 5000 imposed on them.2. Appellants Shreeram Engg. Works, Megha Engg. Corporation and Mefco have filed declarations under notification 13/92 as amended by 1/93 with the authorities mentioning the address as 247, Opp. Sachinan Majiwalada Rd., Thane declaring that they are producing goods under Chapter Heading 84. It is the...

Pristine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC642

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 20.87 lakhs approx. Penalty of Rs. 15000/- imposed by the Asst. Commissioner has been paid.3. Nine notices issued to the applicant proposed to deny modvat credit on the ground that it that it had taken is not, as required by law on the duplicate copy of the Central Excise invoice, but on the triplicate copy of the bill of entry. The Asst. Commissioner accepted the submission of the manufacturer in the reply to the notice that although the documents permitted by law were not submitted to the Jurisdictional authorities for being defaced as provided in rule 57G(2)(a) the credit had been taken on them, and they could not be submitted for being defaced because they were lost by an employee. The manufacturer had contended that according to the usual practice the original copies of such document are not enclosed to the RT 12 return for being defaced and only photocopies are enclosed. The officer defaces the documents subsequently acr...

M/S. Sts Chemical Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT704Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the stay application was clled out, the applicants were not present. The issue being very small, the appeal was taken up for hearing. The appeal memorandum was perused and departmental representative was heard.2. The issue is of denial of capital goods status to a storage tank used for storing hydrochloric acid which is a bye-product for the assessees. The Commissioner held that storage of raw materials or semi finshed goods would entitle to tank to the benefit but not storage of finished goods. To my mind there is no justification for making such interpretation. Storage of the final product is also an ancillary and auxiliary process and would amount to "manufacture" in terms of Section 2 (f) of teh Central Exice Act, 1944.3. The appeal therefore succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief if any....

imperial Thread Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant tendered for export two consignments described as viscose rayon yarn under a claim for benefit of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme. The claim was made under entry 54 of product group 89 (viscose rayon yarn, 100% viscose). The department after testing and examination of the product concluded that the goods ought to be exported was not yarn but sewing thread.On this objection being communicated to the importer, he waived issue of show cause notice and was heard. In the order passed by him subsequent to the hearing, the Commissioner had held that the goods are not yarn but thread and hence not entitled to DEPB benefit under item 54 that being limited to yarn.He therefore denied the credit and taking a lenient view imposed penalty totalling 1.36 lakhs on the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. It was sought to be argued by the counsel for the appellant that there is in reality no difference between yarn and thread. We are unable to accept this argument. The Dictionary of Tex...

Presto Mech Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applicant seeks waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 78,227/-. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) has held that the products manufactured by the appellant come within Chapter sub-heading 9401.00 and not as a part of motor vehicle coming under Chapter Heading 8708.The appellant produces certain channels along with certain moving parts. It is claimed by the appellants that the said part are used as a base to the seat of the jeeps manufactured by Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. It is the contention of the appellant that this could be only treated as an accessory to the motor vehicle. We have considered this argument and also the orders passed by both parties.2. We are prima facie of the view that the question is debatable and hence, we accept the offer of the appellant for payment of Rs. 25000 towards pre-deposit for prosecuting the appeal. The said payment should be made within two months from today. On such payment being made, there will be waiver of deposit of remaining duty dema...

Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applicant absent and unrepresented. There is a delay of two months in filing the appeal. The application for condonation attribute this delay to "want of administration staff and heavy financial difficulty." The stamp duty for filing the appeal is Rs. 2000/-. There is no material in the application to show that the applicant was unable to incur this cost and the legal charges (assuming that an advocate was engaged for this purpose for drafting and filing this appeal). The fact emphasised in the application earlier that the factory was not in very good shape does not justify delaying this appeal. The impugned order was received by the applicant on 5.6.00. There is no material to show that affairs of the factory were in such bad shape for three months following this date leading to an inability to file the appeal, and later improved, enabling the appeal to be filed. We are therefore not satisfied that a case has been made for condoning the delay....

Commissioner of Customs, Goa Vs. Shri Ramji Sukar Tandel, Suresh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1089Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These five appeals are filed by the Revenue. One of the Respondents Shri Ramji Sukar Tandel sought adjournment, on the ground that this concerned persons was out of station. The notices sent to the other respondents have been returned undelivered. I find that on number of occasion over the last few months, the respondents failed to appear.These appeals are therefore taken up for disposal after hearing Shri BB Sarkar Ld. DR.One Ramji Sukar Tandel had planed the illegal importation of silver bullion into India. He asked Devji Radha Tandel to secure a craft for this purpose. Deviji Tandel arranged the craft from the owner Purshotambhai Jadavbhai for Rs. 30,000/-. Shri Devji Tandel took the craft to Dubai to carrying same persons to be smuggled into Middle East. In Khorfkhan. the owner of the craft Shri Purshotambhai joined.After loading the silver the craft came into India with Manilal Daji Tandel, Jagubhai Saniyabhai Tandel, Punabhai Bhagwan Tandel, Tahkorbhai Ravi/tandel, Gopal Dama...

Shakti Insulated Wires Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT668Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two applications seeks stay and waiver of a total sum of Rs.5,82,961/-. The applicant is a job worker operating under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Apart from the goods received from the principle manufacturer, he had also used other inputs in processing of the goods, of the other inputs, he had taken modvat credit. The Revenue felt that since the job worker does not pay duty he is not entitled to use the credit.2. Shri BB Sarkar states that the Revenue are engaging a counsel to argue this case. He therefore seeks time. Shri Rohan Shah states that in the meanwhile the prayer in the present applications could be considered.3. I find it to be a interesting issue, and post the two appeals for final hearing in the 13th of July 2001. In the meanwhile the Revenue shall not take any action to recover the due and amounts of duty and penalty....

Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V.G. Quenim and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR390

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Admit.2. Both these appeals can be disposed of together, for the subject matter as well as the parties to the proceedings are common; and, in fact, the trial Court by the impugned order has disposed of the two separate applications filed in the same suit by common order.3. Briefly stated the appellants instituted suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim being Special Civil Suit No. 7/2000/A for the following reliefs against the respondents, which reads thus:- 'For a decree, directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs, the amount of Rs. 91,89,973.50, being Rs. 67,97,385.50, towards the Principal amount; and Rs. 23,92,588,00, towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-4-98 till 31-1-2000; and further interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1-2-2000, till the institution of the suit, with further interest of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, on the amount adjudged, as being payable by the defendants to the pl...