Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in these two appeals is the eligibility to credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on various gods purchased by the appellant and used in its factory for the manufacture of motor vehicles. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the rejection of the claim ordered by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that goods did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 57Q of being used for processing or producing any goods or for bringing out any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product.2. The representative of the appellant relies upon the ratio of the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Limited Vs. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 47 to say that in order to be considered as capital goods it is only necessary that the item indirectly employed in the manufacture of final product or any of the portion of the product.The departmental representative is unable to rebut this contention, which contention has to be accepted. Material hand...

Fag Precision Bearing Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Adjournment is requested on the ground that the counsel for the applicant "on some important personal work". The matter has been adjourned once earlier at the applicants request on the ground of advocate not well. I do not find sufficient ground for adjournment.2. I have read the stay application and relevant papers and heard the departmental representative.3. Adjudicating upon the three show cause notices demanding duty totalling to Rs.7.34 lakhs approximately, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand for Rs.3.89 lakhs and set aside the demand for Rs.3.45 lakhs. The department appealed this order to the Commissioner(Appeals) who has allowed the appeal and set aside the order. It therefore appears that the total duty to be deposited is Rs.3.45 lakhs. However, the stay application indicates that the duty payable would be Rs.1,02,916/- and this order relates to this amount only.4. Duty has been demanded on the ground that applicant took modvat credit on various invoices which ...

M/S. Anal Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case question involved is whether failure to deposit the duty amount during pendency of the appeal with entail dismissal of the appeal without notice. I find that since the issue lies in a narrow compass, I am of the view that the appeal itself could be taken up for hearing after waiving deposit.2. In this case the Order-in-Original the assessees was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 2,65,150/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for violation of modvat rules. The party has filed declaration under Rule 57G on 30.12.95. This was not considered by the Assistant Commissioner. An appeal was filed along with the application under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant also moved the High Court of Gujarat, who by there order No. SCA No. 1035/99 directed the appellate authority to decide the said application. The appellate authority directed the appellant to pay 1/2 of the amount demanded namely Rs. 1,33,000/-. The appellant it appears did not pay the amount. No notice of hea...

National Test House Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Representative of the appellant says that the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries of the Cabinet Secretariat required for hearing this appeal, the appellant being an organisation of the Government of India, has not yet been received. From the letter dated 28th February, 2001 of the Ministry of Commerce written in that regard to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, it is evident that there has so far not been an attempt to ask the Committee of Secretaries for clearance. The letter seeks intervention of the Member (Customs) before doing so.2. In these circumstances, I dismiss the appeal for want of clearance.The appellant is at liberty to seek revival of the appeal as and when the clearance is received....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Core Health-care Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT437Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The departmental representative says that he has received a communication from the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise. Ahmedabad saying that stay application now signed has bene submitted. Registry report this has not been received. He is unable to say whether the other defect pointed out, the absence of legible copy of the order-in-original has been rectified. Here too the registry reports absence of any further correspondence....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suru Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When asked why the appeal should be admitted the departmental representative says that the duty involved is Rs. 10,488/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. That precisely is the reason the appeal does not merit admission. There is nothing to show that the issues are repetitive....

Base Mental Chlorinations Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of aluminium chloride for which one of the raw material that it requires is aluminium. Notice was issued to it proposing to deny deemed modvat credit which it too on five consignments of aluminium supplied between 10th July, 1989 and 30th June, 1992 by Shreeji Metal Industries, Baroda. The notice alleged that the aluminium, has been cleared by its manufacturer without payment of duty, having been completely exempted by entry (1) of the Table to notification 180/88. Adjudicating upon the notice, the Commissioner confirmed the demand. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the relevant exemption is conditional upon duty having been paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted goods. The decision of the larger Bench in Machine Builders Vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 576 is relied upon to say that it is for the department to prove that the goods have been cleared under an exemption.3. In paragraph 23 of this dec...

Shri Ajit B. Dandekar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for stay of payment of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the applicant. The penalty has been imposed for violation of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, As far as the applicant is concerned he is a director of Infa Engineers Private Limited. The Notice proposes penalty on all the seven noticees except Infa Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The appellant is the director of the said Company against whom under penalty proceedings have been initiated. I therefore feel prima facie that is a strong case in favour of the appellant and waive the penalty and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of this appeal....

Amar Amit Jalana Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented and seeks adjournment on the ground that its consultant has withdrawn. By an application received on 16.4.2001 R.J. Parakh, Advocate seeks to withdraw from the matter on the ground that despite several attempt by him the appellant has not contacted him, from it he conclude that the appellant is not interested in continuing with it advocate. The matter had earlier been adjourned four times at the applicant's request, and on the fifth occasion at the request of Mr. Parakh. I therefore do not find justification for further adjournment.3. Duty has been demanded on the ground that applicant took modvat credit on invoices which were issued not by dealers who purchased the goods from the manufacturer but form others who purchased not from the manufacturers but from other traders. It is contended in the application that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the documents were not issued by the manufacturer is correct only in respect of 3 o...

M.H. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 50,000/-, demanded from the applicant, who was a registered dealer of excisable goods, on the ground that it did not enter particulars of such goods received by it from their manufacturer in the register prescribed for this purpose.2. The representative of the applicant does not deny that there was a failure to enter the details of the goods in register. He contends that sub-rule (3) of Rule 57GG, which prescribes making entries in the register, will only apply in cases where he dealer intends to issue invoices for the purpose of modvat credit. This, he says, is clear in paragraph 9(c) of the circular of the Board No. 96/7/95 dated 13.2.1995. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57GG provides that the registered person shall at the time of making an entry insert the date when the entry is made. Entry can be made subsequent to the receipt of the goods. The applicant only issued the invoices relating to these goods after it made the entry.3. I ...