Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

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...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Rohit Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the demand raised on the ground that containers in which certain inputs were received, were excisable products, once again chargeable to duty on their clearance from the user factory. In holding so he placed reliance upon Tribunal judgment in the case of IOL Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. [1993 (68) ELT 624]. He also referred to instructions dt. 5.9.86 and 9.12.86 issued by the Ministry holding that in such situation excise duty is not chargeable on empty packages. The revenue in stating the grounds of appeal have said nothing regarding the subsequent of the Ministry.The cited decision is sought to be distinguished without giving any ground.On perusal of the appeal memorandum we find no material on which the contest can be made of the impugned order. The revenue appeal does not succeed and is dismissed....

M/S B.P.C.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed against an order in which the present applicants were directed to make the predeposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. An appeal under the provisions of Section 35B cannot be filed against an interlocutory/interim order. This has been brought out in the following judgments. [I] Motilal And Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Thane [1987 (31) ELT 517 (Tribunal)] [II] Hindustan Petroleum Cororation Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1988 933) ELT 358 (Tribunal)]...

M/S C. Natvarlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The contested goods are products of sea vegetation. The literature suggests its use are pre operation dialysis preparatory to installation or removal of IUDs or for radium treatment. These goods were earlier classification under Sub-heading 9904.00. In the present proceedings they were initially sought to be classified under heading 3006.10 and later by an amendment under 1212.99.2. We find that none of the three classifications can cover the products. Prima facie it appears that the classification attracted would be 901890, under the residual category in medical or surgical appliances. In view of this uncertainty and also on the observation that part of the demand is hit by limitation, and also on observation of an order by the Government of Kerala, describing the contested goods as FD devised we grant waiver of predeposit of duty and stay its recovery during the appeal proceedings....

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved is the rate applicable to the gods initially received as input sand cleared as such in terms of Rule 57F (1) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner in the impugned order preferred to charge a rate higher than what was paid by the first manufacturer.2. The issue stands squarely covered by the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. [2000 (120) ELT 228 (Tribunal-LB)]. The Tribunal held that what as required was to restore the original position by debiting the same rate of duty at which he had taken the credit....

The Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT623Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved is about classification of "Coal Ash" and its exigibility to duty under the Central Excise Act. The Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order has followed the Board's Circular No.386/19/98-CX.III dt. 7.4.98 and decided against the appellant. The same circular has been quashed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2000 (39) RLT 902 (Guj.). The said judgment of the Ahmedabad High Court has been followed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shaw Wallace Gelatimes Ltd. Vs. CCE Inodre [2000 (44) RLT 241 (CEGAT-Del.)]. Hence following the same, the appeal of the appellant is allowed reversing the impugned order and also order consequential relief to the appellant if any according to law....

Universal Cans and Containers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant cleared from its factory on 30.6.1986 a consignment of tin containers intended to store toothpowder. There was a delay in the arrival of the goods at the consignee's premises on account of breakdown in the truck carrying the goods, with the result that the consignee refused to accept the consignment. The appellant kept the goods for days outside the factory and was transporting them to some other premises for storage when the officers of the department chanced upon them. Finding that the gate passes were not valid for the reason that the goods were not going to the supplier whose name was mentioned therein and on account of the time that had elapsed, they seized the goods. Subsequently the department permitted the appellant to provisionally clear the goods pending adjudication on payment of 'appropriate duty'. The appellant once again paid duty on 27.6.1986 under protest and cleared the goods. The proceedings initiated by the department following the seizure were drop...

Ramka Silk House Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(97)LC570Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs imposed on the applicant under Section 114 of the Act.3. The penalty has been imposed on the ground that the applicant misdeclared the bleached, optically whitened fabrics which it tendered for export to be dyed fabric for the purposes of claiming a higher benefit under Duty Free Replenishment Certificate Scheme.4. We are not prima facie able to accept the contention of the Counsel for the applicant that the report of the Synthetics and Art Silk Mills' Research Association (SASMIRA) indicates the fabrics to be dyed. It explains that they have been treated with optical whitener. Prima facie this is not dyeing, defined in the Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles to uniformly cover fabric with solid colour. While the contention that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 113 of the Act for wrongly claiming Duty Free Replenishment Certificate benefit is prima facie correct, there was a cl...

Ashish Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. In that order the Commissioner has found that the appellant did not pay the duty on the goods cleared by it between 10.10.1994 and 20.3.1995 despite having collected the duty from the buyers of the goods. She therefore confirmed the proposal contained in the notice demand for duty of Rs. 8.05 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs.8.05 lakhs on the appellant, ordered confiscation of the land, builing, plant and machinery of the appellant permitting it to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. She records that the appellant had paid the duty in question prior to passing the order.2. Mr. Arun Patel, proprietor of the appellant reiterates the argument contained in the appeal. The first ground in the appeal was that the order in question is illegal because it is passed ex-parte. It is not possible to accept that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case. The show cause notice w...

Shri Mohammed Arif Abdul Khalik Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal Vide Order No. C-II/9995-997/WZB/2001 dt. 12.4.2001 had directed appellant applicants Mohammed Arif Abdul Khalik to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs and Nasir Hussain Kaliwala to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as precondition to hearing of their appeals. Predeposit was directed to be made by 10.4.2001. Liberty was given to the applicants to move for early disposal of the main appeal, on compliance being shown. These orders were dictated in the presence of two Counsels appearing for the appellants/applicants. On 17.5.2001 when the cases wee called out, Shri S.R. Narayanan Consultant appearing sought to refer to application bearing No. C/M.A.(Modfn)373/2001 seeking modification of the earlier cited order in so far as it pertained to Shri Mohammed Arif Abdul Khalik. He submitted that (SIC) had deposited amount but he was unable to show the proof thereof. The Tribunal considered the submissions and in Order No C-II/1346-47/WZB/2001 dt. 18.5.2001 observed that the modification application having ...