Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Maharashtra Glass and Agro Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT283Tri(Mum.)bai

1.This appeal arises out of the impugned order 21.6.96 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order in original dated 2.5.96 of the Assistant Commissioner who denied to the appellants the benefit of Notification No.49/95 as amended by Notification No.90/95-Cus. dated 1.5.95 and held the classification of the imported goods (horizontal washing and drying machine)for the purposes of Customs duty under sub-heading 8479.89 of the CTA and for countervailing duty under sub-heading 8479.10 of the CTA.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various types of glass and glass articles including automobile glass.They imported horizontal washing and drying machine(imported machine)for the purpose of washing and drying the glass before sending for quality control test, packing etc.In the bill of entry filed by them with the Customs authorities they classified the imported machine under sub-heading 8422.20 of the CTA and also claimed benefit of Notification N...

M/S. Devidayal Industries Ltd and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.6,40,170/- and penalty of Rs.30,000/-.2. The duty was confirmed and the penalty was imposed by the Commissioner in the belief that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Notification No. 203/92 Cus inasmuch as in the production of export goods modvat credit had been availed of. The appellants raised the following contentions:- [1] Being transferee license holders they are not liable for the alleged frauds of the transferer.[2] They are in a possession of the certificates of reversal of the excise duty.3. In dealing with an identical case reported in 1999 (112) ELT 835 (Tribunal) [Dabur India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,] the Tribunal had held that where extended period is invoked under Section 28(1) of the Act, it had to be shown that the fraud, misrepresentation etc. had been mad...

Gujarat Container Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Assistant Collector that the appellant could not take modvat credit on the basis of an endorsed subsidiary gate pass.3. The contention of the appellant is that, by circular No.263/26/88-Cx-8 dated 23.1.1989 of the Board subsidiary certificates issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent were permitted to be endorsed once for the purpose of taking credit. The Assistant Collector refused to accept this on the ground that this circular was no longer valid by issue of department's latter trade notice No. 106/92 dated 11.11.1992 issued by the jurisdictional Collector. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that this trade notice did not at all deal with the issue of endorsed certificates issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent. It only refers to certificates issued by public sector undertaking. It only says that certificates issued by public sector undertaking could not be endorse...

M/S. Harileela Process House Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal vide Order dt. 16.3.2001 had directed the applicants Harileela Process House to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within a specified period from the date of receipt of that order. The order was despatched on 30.3.2001. On the date fixed for reporting compliance, the Tribunal took into account the written submission of the appellants that the period for compliance had not yet elapsed. Vide Order dt.9.5.2001, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 28.5.2001. This order was despatched to the appellants on 19.5.2001. The appellants are located in district Thane. It is therefore assumed, that the order was received by them. Their earlier application shows their awareness of the directions made.2. Today when the application was called out, no one was present nor was there any report of compliance. The appeal is therefore dismissed in terms of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Htc Diesel Engines Pvt. Ltd. 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 confirming a demand for duty of Rs. 1,09,702.26 demanded from the appellant, ordering confiscation of the goods valued Rs. 53,400/-, permiting them to be redeemed on payment of find of Rs. 10,000/- and imposing penalty on the appellant of Rs. 10,000/-.3. The departmental officers stopped a van carrying one diesel engine of horsepower exceeding 10 and engines of below 10 and one box of spare parts, cleared from the appellant's factory. The driver of the van bad with him a gate pass for the diesel engine of above 10 horsepower but no other documents showing payment of duty. Verification by the officers showed that debit had not been made to the personal ledger account of the manufacturer with regard to the duty shown to have been paid in the gate pass. Subsequent investigation resulted in issue of show cause notice to the appellant and other persons resulting in the Commissioner's order. It appears that other three persons on whom ...

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...

M/S. Terene Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT889Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai made in Order No. 1/99-Commor.VI dated 11/11.1999 confirming demand of duties of Rs. 4,21,92,165/- and imposing a penalty of equivalent amount under rule 57U (6) of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellants manufactured polyester staple fibre (PSF) which falls under heading 5503.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. The appellants, ICI Ltd, and Reliance Industries Ltd. had agreed among themselves that in the plant owned by ICI Ltd., which was transferred to the appellants. The appellants would thus convert the necessary raw materials supplied by Reliance Industries into PSF to the extent of the rated capacity of the appellants plant. The arrangements/agreements between the three parties mentioned above were made in the year 1993. In the year 1995 the Audit Wing of the department exchanged correspondence with the appellants. The letters were dated 1.2.1995, 27.6.1995, 24...

The Collector of Telecom Stores Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1113Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants received an Adhoc Exemption Order dt. 5.1.89 whereby partial exemption was granted from the duties of Customs, auxiliary duty of Customs and Additional Duty of Customs leviable on cables and other equipment to be imported by the present appellant upto the value limit of Rs.121.3 crores (emphasis added). The Notification was valid upto 31.3.89 but the validity was late extended to 30.9.89. Before the issue of the notification, the appellants had filed two bills of entry on 28.12.88. After assessment duty was paid in the case of both bills of entry on 6.1.89 and the goods were cleared on receipt of the notification. The present appellants filed two refund claims. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claims holding that the Adhoc Exemption Order did not cover goods which had already been cleared citing the provisions of Section 15(1) (a) he dismissed the refund claim. The dismissal having been upheld by the Collector (Appeals).Hence the present appeal is before us.2....

M/S. Poona Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT445Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant use glass bottles in their product-aerated waters.During the processing breakage of bottles occurs. The resultant scrap was cleared on private documents without payment of duty. After issue of the show cuse notice and after hearing the assesses, the Assistant Collector held that the said scrap of glass was classifiable under sub-heading 70001.10 and in this belief-confirmed duty and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld this order, the present appeal is before us. "Whereas scrap of glass of all kinds arising from the manufacture of glass also broken articles. Waste glass is generally characterised by its sharp edges".4. Whereas scrap in terms of the sub-notes would fall under this sub-heading where "arising from the manufacture of glass", an argument was made that where such scrap or waste resulted in an activity of manufacture of products other than glass, the heading was not attracted. This argument is interesting. But then the classification und...

M/S. Chandru Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application for waiver of payment of duty of Rs. 6,11,917/- and the fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The charge against the appellant was that he has filed the monthly returns as required under Rule 173 G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the appeal that there is no other evidence in the case disclosed by the department apart from the statement of the appellant in the said paragraph 13 the appellant also states that the firm had worked for 364 days during January 1996 to February, 1997 and 282 days from March 1997 to January 1998 and that firm could manufacture only 200 chokes a day and the cost of the chokes is taken at Rs. 42/- per piece. He challenges demand of duty on this basis.3. We have considered the submissions and are of the view in a prima facie way that when there is an admission of the proprietor himself, which has not been retracted later the demand of duty is justified. The application for waiver even though states that the balance...