Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commr. of Customs and Central Vs. M/S. Universal Luggage Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents in this case were paying duty on the cost construction method in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. Show cause notice was issued proposing enhancement of assessable value on two grounds; the first was that the element of duty paid on the inputs need to be added for the purpose of computation and the second was that in the place of profit margin at 6% taken, the profit margin should be taken at 8%. After hearing the assessees, the Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,33,449/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The assessee then filed an appeal. The Commissioner observed that the Rules of Valuation were clear providing that profit, if any, had to be added. The Board's instructions were for adoption of gross profit of previous year. The Commissioner observed that since the assessee had made no profit, there was no justification for increasing the margin from 6% to 8%. As regards the first ground, he relied upon the Tribu...

M/S. India Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a defects which have been pointed out in respect of the suppliers. Invoices were such suppliers have to to be Steel Authority of India and M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Modvat credit have been rectified. The assessee has purchased the inputs from SAIL as well as HPCL a very big Public Undertaking Company. It is not the case of the department that the input was never used in or in relation to the manufacture Certain procedural irregularities have been pointed out which have ben rectified later on the denial of modvat credit is wrong in law. I follow the judgement of the WZB, Mumbai in the case of Aegis Chemical Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad. [1999 (106) ELT 492 (Tribunal)]. Hence following the same I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any according to law....

Commr. of Cen. Excise, Mumabi Vs. M/S. Press Metal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents sought adjournment. The issue being clear, we took up the appeal for decision after hearing the ld. departmental representative.2. The limited issue for consideration in this case is whether, duty paid on inputs availed as modvat credit by the assessee need to be included for the purpose of ascertaining the assessable value. The Commissioner in the impugned order relying upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria [1996(81)ELT 676 held in favour of the assessee.3. The Revenue in this appeal have made considerable efforts in establishing how the Tribunal erred in making the cited judgement. It is claimed that the Tribunal had not taken into account the Supreme Court judgement in the case of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. UOI [1992(59)EIT 3 (SC). It is claimed that the appreciation made by the Tribunal of circular of the Board was wrong. We find that the cited judgement of the Tribunal has been upheld in to by the Supreme Court vide their order repro...

Prabhat Polycoaters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT701Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), passed on an appeal filed by the manufacturer against the order of the Deputy Collector. In that order, the Dy. Collector ordered confiscation of goods manufactured by it on the ground that they were not entered in the RG-1 register. He permitted their redemption on payment of fine of Rs.2 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the manufacturer. On appeal from that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the liability of the goods to confiscation and the manufacturer to penalty but reduced the redemption fine and penalty t Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively.2. Mr. R.D. Wagle, C.A., to whom a copy of notice of hearing was sent, that he is unable to represent the appellant for want of instructions.Despite notice to it, appellant is not present and has not asked for adjournment. Therefore, after reading the memorandum of appeal and hearing the departmental representative, I proceed to decide the appeal.3. ...

M/S. thermax Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant moved application praying for stay of operation of the order. On hearing the ld. counsel and the ld. departmental representative, we feel that the appeal itself can be disposed of. So without passing any separate order on the stay application, we dispose of the appeal itself.2. The appellant challenges the Order-in-Original No.S/10-Mod-J-1092/99 Gr.VII dated 30/10/2000, wherein, a sum of Rs. 13,09,440/- has been levied by way of duty under Sec. 28AA with interest at the rate of 24%. A penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. The said order was the outcome of the show cause notice dated 29.1.99 issued by the New Custom House, Bellard Estate, Mumbai. The show cause notice proceeded on the basis that the appellant had imported goods on presenting import licences mentioned in annexure under advance licence and have availed duty free clearance of imported goods under Notfn. No. 203/92-Cus dated 19/5/92 against such licences. Notification No. 203/92-Cus ...

M/S. Air India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT802Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking and have produced the requisite clearance from the Committee of Secretaries.2. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal.3. M/s. Air India Ltd, the appellants, have a private bonded warehouse.On periodical stock taking, it appeared that they had excess of articles in bond totally valued at Rs. 17,21,150/-. Show cause notice was issued alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 45,46,59 & 60. It was claimed that this contravention would render the goods to confiscation under Sec.111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalty. Before the Commissioner, it was pleaded that these goods were sent out and had been received back during 1998. Because of the failure of the computer system, the accounting was not properly done. The Commissioner did not find merit in this plea and ordered confiscation of the goods but allowed redemption on pa...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Fixwell Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the question involved is whether modvat credit can be denied for violation of procedural irregularities. In this case the modvat credit has been denied on the ground that the invoices issued by dealers did not have certain particulars namely certificates number etc. It is not denied by the department that the input has been used in the manufacture of the declared final product. As long as the inputs has been used in the manufacture of final product there cannot be denied of modvat credit. There are several decision which have been held in favour of the party one of the judgement in the case of Bengal Safety Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [1997 (92) ELT 81 (Tribunal)]. Following the same I dismiss the appeal of the department. Assessee is entitled to any consequential relief if any according to law....

M/S. Himson Textiles Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Customs-i,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Commissioner of Customs-I made in Order-in-Original No. CAO/NO/50/96/CAC/CCI dt. 15.3.96 in and by which he has held that the Multi Spindle Copying/Duplicating and Profile Milling Machine is not covered under Item 12 of Appendix I Part-B of EXIM Policy 85-88.2. Appellants are manufacturers and importers of various types of machinery. The matter before me is in respect of the importation of second hand "multi spindle copying/duplicating and profile milling machine". The item in question was imported from Italy some time in March 1986. At the relevant period the Appendix I Part-B Item No.12 of the Import Policy reads as follows: The machine in question consist of a vertical spindle and horizontal spindle. It is the case of the importer appellant that it directly fits in the description given in the above item so as to he eligible for import under Open General Licence mentioned in Part-B of Appendix-I of the relevant Import Policy. It is the a...

Commr. of Cen. Excise, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Sharda Electricals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(125)ELT576Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents in this case manufactured goods bearing the brand of another person. The assessable value was determined on the basis of contract prices duly approved. At a later date, show cause notice was issued alleging that in the composition of prices, the element of duty paid on the raw materials used for manufacture of the goods was not added as also that the cost of advertisements, sales promotion etc. had not been added by the assessee. Before the Asstt. Commissioner, it was claimed that the contract prices were in terms of Sec. 4 and, therefore, there was no requirement or propriety in loading the same with any components. The Asstt. Commissioner, however, confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 6,30,671/-. The assessee then filed an appeal.The Collector (Appeals) referring to the Tribunal's orders in the case of CCE vs Incab Industries [1990(45) ELT 342(Tri) held that the duty paid on the raw material was not addible. He also held that there was no justification in making th...

M/S. General Metallisers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter came up for admission today it is found that the impugned order have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals before him on the ground of non compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. During the course of proceedings it is found that the impugned order have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai without observing the principles of natural justice. Hence appeal was taken up for disposal with eh consent of both sides after waiving predeposit.3. In the Order-in-Original- it is found that the Assistant Commissioner Nasik had confirmed the duty of Rs. 18,128/- issued by Range Superintendent vide is his memo dt. 4.8.97. The Assistant Commissioner by the said order has imposed penalty of Rs.2,000/- the ground for on which duty was demanded is for failure to adhere to the provisions of the modvat rules namely Rules 57G and 57I of the Central Excise Act. Against the Order-in-Appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeal...