Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. South Asia Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner, in his order, disallowed Modvat credit of Rs 14,66,324/- under Rule 57U 92) of the Central excise Rules, 1944, and imposed a penalty of like amount under Rule 57U (6) of the said Rules.The assessees have filed an appeal and the present application for waiver of pre deposit of the same and stay of recovery thereof.2. The learned counsel for the assessees submits that the charge resulting in the confirmation of the amount was that the assessees had taken Modvat credit on capital goods and at the same time had claimed depreciation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act also. He admits that this was in the face of the express prohibition in the Rules. He also admits that the prohibition had existed in the books for quite some time before this wrong availment was made. He states that later on they filed revised returns before the assessing officers and the Income tax officers had reassessed their returns for the particular periods.He has placed voluminous correspon...

M/S. Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT88Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case appeal itself is taken up for consideration as the matter lie in a narrow compass.2. The appellant is manufacturing goods failing under Chapter Heading 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They were procedural irregularities for which notices have given resulting in confirmation of duty amounting to Rs.8277/-+Rs.9596/-+Rs,557/-. The order imposes penalties of amounts of Rs.9596/-+Rs.10557/-.The assessees filed appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)who by his order dt.28.2.2000 in the application filed under section 35f of the Act without giving an opportunity dismissed the appeal.Hence the present appeal.3. We have been consistently holding that dismissal of the appeal without giving an opportunity is wrong.It is true that application under Section 35F can be considered and decided in the absence of the party, but, that does not mean appeal itself could be decided without hearing the party. We have held so in Entek IRD International (I) Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mu...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Associated Chemical Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I have seen the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in earlier decision of the Tribunal. The amount involved is Rs. 11, 305/- in exercise of the discretion vested in me under second proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I decline to entertain this appeal, as this is not a recurring nature. The appeal is dismissed. Stay petition also stands disposed of....

M/S. Khaton Fibre and Fabrics Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC215

1. On hearing both sides, we find that the point of law is fully covered. We therefore take up the appeal for decision.2. The appellant were operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The jurisdictional Commissioner had determined the duty payable by the appellants vide his order dated 27.10.1999. This order was in the nature of finalisation of the capacity of the stenters. In making this order, the Commissioner had taken into account the length of galleries and had ruled that they should be added towards determining the number of chambers. The assessees had however continued to make payment in terms of the declaration made by them without taking the length of the galleries into account. The Deputy Commissioner passed orders on 26.5.2000 directing recovery of differential duty and imposing penalty upon the appellants. The appellants then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed them to make a pre deposit of...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Sahara India Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The counsel for the respondent says that the goods which form the subject matter of the appeal by the Commissioner have been cleared on payment of duty and fine before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was passed. Hence, the ground advanced for stay of operation of his order that its implementation will cause financial loss to the government, is unacceptable....

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Luna Engineering Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The department's appeal was dismissed on the ground that a document in Hindi, stated to be the authorisation of the Commissioner, what was filed with the appeal was a photocopy containing the initials of the Commissioner, unsigned by him. The application now seeks restoration on the ground that although such authorisation was not produced, the Commissioner had authorised the appeal.2. The departmental representative is unable to explain how, in the absence of a valid authorisation, the Tribunal is to conclude that the Commissioner had authorised the appeal. The fact emphasised by him, that the application for restoration is signed by the Commissioner who was the successor in office to the Commissioner who, it is claimed, initially signed the authorisation, does not confer sanctity upon the earlier document that it otherwise did not possess....

Voltas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT531Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant absent and unrepresented despite notice. There is no response to the notice of hearing under Rule 11 asking for legible copies of the order-in-original and order-in-appeal....

Colt Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT138Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Adjournment is sought on the ground that the applicant's managing director is 'out of station'. If the managing director felt that whatever necessitated him be out of station was so important than that he could not attend the matter before the Tribunal, he should have made other arrangements for the applicant to be represented. The matter has already been adjourned once on the same ground, that the managing director was away. I therefore decline to adjourn.2. I have read the relevant papers and heard the departmental representative.3. Duty of Rs. 1,26,276 has been demanded, and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the applicant on the ground that modvat credit was taken by the applicant on an unauthenticated photocopy of a gate pass and not, as provided by law, on the original. The contention in the stay application is that the photocopy on which the credit was taken was certified by the jurisdictional Superintendent and the Bombay High Court in its judgement in Bombay Goods Tran...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Coates of India Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The very short issue for consideration in this case is whether it was open for the appellants to pay duty on the intermediated goods captively consumed, although full exemption was available for such goods under an exemption notification. the Commissioner (Appeals), in his order relying upon certain orders of the Tribunal, held that the appellants had the choice to avail or not avail of the exemption.Against this order, this appeal has been filed by the revenue. Reliance is placed upon the instruction issued by the Board. It is claimed that the Tribunal had referred a question of law arisen out of the judgement in the case of Everest Converters vs CCE (1995 (80) ELT 91). We find that the ratio of the judgement in Everest Converters vs CCE (1995 (80) ELT 91) has been consistently followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases, including in the judgement in 2000 (121) ELT 468. It has also been held, in a number of cases, that the mere fact that a reference has been made to the jurisdi...

Vivid Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 78,233/-.Duty equivalent to penalty has already been deposited.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding that the applicant on the occasions (according to the counsel for the applicant) took modvat credit of duty 50% higher that the figure shown in the excise invoice. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that this has happened due to oversight is difficult to accept. He is unable to explain how credit was repeatedly taken of an amount 50% higher than the duty shown on the gate pass to have been paid. Such repeated acts would not result by accident or oversight, and appear prima facie to reveal premeditation and calculation.3. I am also not swayed, prima facie, by the argument that since the duty was paid before issue of show cause notice, penalty ought not have been imposed. The decision of the Tribunal in DCW Ltd. Vs. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 381 in which penalty was set aside on the ground that ...