Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

The Ahmedabad Kaiser-i-hind Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the stay application came up for orders, we heard the ld.Consultant Shri K.M.Mondal representing the appellants and the Departmental Representative Shri Arun Chopra for the Revenue. On hearing the arguments advanced on either side and on going through the records, we feel that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage without passing order on the stay application.2. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Asst. Commissioner the appellants herein moved the lower Appellate Authority viz. the Commissioner(Appeals). Along with the appeal before that authority the appellant moved for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount covered by the Order-in-Appeal. The Commissioner(Appeals) directed pre-deposit of Rs.1,62,000/-. That amount was to be deposited on or before 17.1.99. On 11.1.99, an application for modification of the earlier order was filed. Personal hearing was also sought for on that application.Without giving an opportunity to personally represent the case, the...

M/S Biochem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufactures patent of propriety medicaments in its factory and clears them on payment of duty to its depot for sale to customers. In the price-list filed by it, it claimed in respect of some of its products, discount expressed in the quantity of the goods cleared. Thus, for example, the discount on Otrim Suspension was expressed as "one bottle per every 11 bottles" indicating that for the price for 10 bottles the buyer would get eleven.2. Notice issued to the appellant in respect of clearances made in November 1993 to March 1994, proposed to disallow such discount and demanded duty calculated by including it. The notice advanced two reasons that the discount was not expressed in terms of value and the appellant had not quantified the discount in the price-list. The second reason was that there was no sale from the depots and therefore the discount was "not passed on to the buyer" at the time of delivery at the factory gate.3. The Assistant Collector dropped the proce...

M/S Devarsons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC639

2. Notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of duty on the goods imported by it, on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92, which had been extended on their importation, would not be available. The appellant replied by letter dated 22.3.1999, containing that it had availed of notification 204/92, and not 203/92. Therefore the reason for denial of exemption, the modvat credit had been taken to the manufacture of the export of products, would not be available there being no such condition in notification 204/92.3. The reply to the notice is claimed to have been received in the Commissioner's office on 5.4.1999. The Commissioner has however passed orders on 22.9.2000 finding that no reply was filed. The appellant claim is prima facie supported by the copies of the import licence, which shows quantity, value both to be included, copy of the DEC Book No. 78045 which shows notification 204/92.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and impugned order set aside. The Commissi...

Shri Anil Patel, M/S. Auxifarban Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals pertain to end arise out of the single order passed by the Collector of Customs, Sahar airport, Mumbai. These are, therefore, taken up together for disposal.The appellants are not represented but have filed written submissions.The claim made is that the show cause notice invoking the extended period has been issued by the Asstt.Directed, D.R.I, and hence the demand made thereunder cannot sustain. In support of this claim, the Trade Notice issued by the Raipur Collectorate bearing No.1/92 dated 17.6.92 has been cited.2. We have seen the subject show cause notice where the provisions of Sec.28(1) of the Customs Act 1962 have been invoked. The show cause notice is dated 29.3.93 whereas the imports were made in January, 1991.3. We find that in identical circumstances, the Tribunal in their judgment in the case of Bakeman's Home Products Pvt.Ltd. vs CC, Mumbai[1997(95)ELT 278(Tri) had held that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction.The fact being identical, we...

M/S. Amar Dye Chem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant company has gone into liquidation. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant (sic) abated in view of Rule 22 of the CEGAT(Procedural)Rules, 1982. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as abated....

M/S. Aver Photographic Co. Ramesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT321Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications are for modification of the order passed on stay petitions. Along with the appeals, appellants moved petitions claiming for stay of recovery of duty of Rs. 18.35 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and a further penalty of Rs. One lakh on the partner. By order dated 22.3.1999, the appellant firm was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs within two months from that date. On such deposit, it was ordered that the remaining amount of duty and penalties should not be recovered by co-ersive steps. On receipt of the order, the appellants/applicants moved applications for modification of that order. When the applications came up for hearing, there was no representative on behalf of the appellants/applicants. Taking note of the fact that the financial hardship was raised for the first time in the applications for modification, and that plea was not supported by any acceptable evidence, that application dismissed by order dated 6.11.99. The applicant firm was directed to ...

M/S Govind Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the impugned order the Commissioner has held that the benefit of notification 230/92 is wrongly accorded to the appellant, for the reason that modvat credit was taken in the manufacture of goods exported.3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the export product, with regard to all the advance licences figuring in the adjudication order, is bicycle tyres, which were exempted from duty.There would therefore be no question of taking credit on the duty on the inputs used in the manufacture. He cites the Commissioner's orders (30 of 2000 dated 11.10.2000) dropping notice issued to the appellant on this ground.4. We are of the view that this aspect should be considered by the Commissioner. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Mr. Patil undertakes on behalf of the appellant that a reply to the show cause notice incorporating the submissions that have been made before us would be filed within a month from the receipt of this order.The Commi...

Taj Birdys Food Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this application the appellant prays for waiver of deposit of the remaining amount as pre-deposit contemplated by Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act. As per the Order-in-Original No. KI/Addl-06/1999 dated 15.12.99 a sum of Rs. 7,17,145.52 was imposed as duty on the appellant.A like sum was also directed to be paid as penalty invoking the provisions contained in Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act. That order was challenged before the Commissioner(Appels). For entertaining that appeal the lower Appellate Authority directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty and waived pre-deposit of the penalty. The appeal happened to be dismissed by the lower Appellate Authority by order dated 29.8.2000. Hence, this appeal before us.2. According to the ld.Counsel representing the appellant, aggrieved by the imposition of duty and penalty, the appellant went in appeal before the lower Appellate Authority and deposited 50% of the duty as a condition for entertaining the appeal. The deposit s...

M/S. Jay Shakti Chemical Pvt. and Vs. Cc Ex, Rajkot

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Modification is sought of the order of the Tribunal dated 6.2.1996 dismissing the stay application and, intimating in their absence, that in the event of no duty and penalty were deposited by it within two months from the date of that order the appeal will be dismissed.3. The application has come up for the second time, opportunity having been given to the applicant to represent its case as claimed in the application on 19.12.2000. The application itself does not make any grounds for modification of the order. The application has not chosen to come and explain its case.4. The application is accordingly dismissed. Unless evidence of deposit of the amount is not produced on 12.6.2001, on which date the matter will come up on board, the appeals will be dismissed....

M/S. Laser Recycling Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is an Export Oriented Unit. On the ground that they did not comply with the export obligation for the year 1995-96 proceedings were initiated by issue of show cause notice dated 24.12.99. After proper enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority passed the Order-in-Original No. KDL/Commr/62/2000 dated 29.9.2000 imposing duty of Rs. 3,75,798/- on the applicant. A penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also imposed on the applicant. The said Order-in-Original is under challenge.2. The applicant prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts for entertaining the appeal. The main ground urged by them is financial difficulties. According to the ld. Counsel, as a result of the devastating earth quake that took place on 26.1.01, the entire establishment crumbled and the applicant is not in a position to make any pre-deposit.3. We have heard the ld.departmental repesentative and perused the records.4. The statement made by the ld.counsel that the entire establishment of the appellant has been ...