Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

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 ...

Dsr-senetor Lines Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order passed on 28.5.1996 by the Additional Commissioner. Consequent upon the amendment made to the Customs Act, 1962 the appeal against this order will lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) and not to this Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly ordered to be returned to the appellant....

M/S. Ganesh Anhydride Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri G.L. Rawal for the applicants and Shri BK Choubey for the Revenue, it appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be taken up for disposal. This was done, by granting waiver of predeposit of duty confirmed.2. Shri Rawal submits that the impugned order is defective inasmuch as the advance licence number quoted therein is not what was shown in the show cause notice. He submits that licence number from the basis of Order No. S-10-MODVAT-J-443/99 Gr.VII dt. 15.11.2000 (issued on 4.12.200) in which the Commissioner on being satisfied that the modvat credit taken had reversed, had dropped the proceedings. He further submits that the importers did not get any notice for personal hearing and so they did not have the opportunity of explaining these facts to the Commissioner.3. We have considered the submissions and find that the Commissioner orders suffers on the grounds mentioned above. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the orders and direct readjudicati...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Hybrid Electronic Systems Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the invoice dated 17.6.1996 issued by Tecmark Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad was a valid document for taking credit.2. I have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice issued and has not filed any written submission.3. In his order the Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the invoice contains all the details specified in notification 15/94. The appeal contends that a number of details which are required by the notification are missing. This required to be accepted. The invoice does not indicate the following: whether the dealer is registered or not, full name and address of the manufacturer and the jurisdictional officers of the manufacturer, the mode of despatch and details therof, name and address of officers having jurisdiction over the dealer.4. In the light of the above finding it is not possible to uphold the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding. The ap...

Mulsingh S Ranawat and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 48,632/- and penalties totalling of Rs. 48,632/-; redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of goods which were earlier provisionally released, by pilot Industries; penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by Kushalchand Jain, (clerk of Pilot Industries) and Rs. 5,000/- by Mulsingh Ranawat.3. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirms the order of the Dy. Commissioner as that order resulted from the proceedings which commenced when the officers seized a vehicle of Ranawat loaded with goods manufactured by Pilot Industries. The Dy. Commissioner finds that the vehicle was found 100 meters away from the factory and that proper invoices, delivery challans was not issued when the goods was seized. Subsequent investigation, according to them shows the presence of documents which indicated that the goods had been removed in the past without paying duty of nearly Rs. 48,000/-.4. The contention of the common representative is that the veh...

Godfrey Philips India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By letter dated 28.5.2001 advocate for the appellant produced copy of certificate issued by the competent authority showing full and final settlement of the dispute under Kar Vivadh Samadhan Schemue, 1998....

Limca Flavours and Fragrance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Cent ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Each of these matters have been settled under the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, 1998, as seen from the certificates of full and final settlement of the arrears, issued by the proper authority, which the counsel for the appellant produced....

General Metallisers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him against the order of the Assistant Commissioner for failure to deposit the entire duty and penalty demanded and imposed in that order. The issue is the eligibility to modvat credit to lubricating oil. By a number of decisions (Devidayal Aluminium Industries Vs. CCE 1999 (112) ELT 627; Shushila Steel Vs. CCE 1998 (98) ELT 237) the Tribunal has held such lubricating oils used in the machines for manufacture to be inputs under Rule 57A. The Commissioner's stay order discloses a total non-application of mind; it does not refer to the submissions made before him, and does not refer to the issues involved. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that it is a stereotyped order in which, amounts, name and address of the parties are filled in as required.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.The Commissioner (Appeals) shall hear and dispose of the appeal without requiring any deposit....

Bharat thermite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT463Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is admitted and taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty as directed by him in his stay order. The appeal was against the order of the Assistant Commissioner demanding duty on the goods manufactured by the assessee. In that order the Assistant Commissioner has demanded duty on consignment of ferro alloys which the appellant has received back from their customer who found it to be defective, to whom it was supplied on payment of duty.The appellant had indicated its intention to reprocess this quantity but cleared it without such reprocessing to another customer who found it to be proper for its use. The Assistant Commissioner has held that benefit of Rule 173H would not apply.3. Prima facie, this order does not appear to be maintainable. Rule 173H is a provisional law that by itself imposes duty liability.Sub-rule (1) of that rule prohibit...

M/S. Fems India Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants are not present. Since the issues are clear, we tale up the main appeal for disposal, on granting prayer of waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs. 38,34,996/- and penalty of Rs. 1,92,000/-.2. The Commissioner imposed the penalty and confirmed the duty in the belief that the appellants had contravened the terms of notification No. 203/92-CUS inasmuch as in the manufacture if export goods, inputs stage credit had been availed of. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the final export products did not attract any duty and therefore the question of utilisation of modvat credit did not arise.Reliance is placed upon a trade notice which removes the necessity of production of certificates from excise authority in such cases. As to why they did not file reply or did not appear before the Commissioner, there is no statement.3. In view of the statements we allow the appeal and remand the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Commissioner. He shall call the present appella...