Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Soma Textiles and Industries L ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The amount involved is Rs.10,187/- being modvat credit taken under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on copper wire, used for winding of electric motors. Apart form the smallness of the amount the issue in fact been covered by various decisions, appears to be in favour of the assessee since the copper wire would be a component part of the electric motor....

themis Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for condonation of delay of 146 days in filing of this appeal.2. However, on considering the matter it turns out that the question of any delay in filing this appeal does not arise for the following reasons.3. This appeal and an earlier appeal No. E/3950/99 form the same appellant are against a common order dated 30.8.1999 of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of two appeals before him.Representative of the applicant contends that one of the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) was against the order of the Assistant Commissioner adjudicating on a show cause notice issued to the assessee denying modvat credit. The other appeal was against the order of the Assistant Commissioner dismissing the claim for refund of modvat credit. By mistake, a common appeal had been filed against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of filing two appeals, one relating to the demand and the other relating to refund.4. However, on verification this is not found to be...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Stovec Industries Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Apart from the fact that there are no grounds in the stay application question of stay would not arise in a situation where credit has been taken....

Power Gear Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him on the ground that there was a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the order in question was not communicated directly tot he appellant as provided under Section 35 of the Act. It was pasted upon the factory presumably in pursuance of Section 37C. Therefore there has been no delay in filing of the appeal because the order was not communicated under Section 35 of the Act. The other contention is that there has been no notice given before the appeal was dismissed on limitation. If the Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was delay in filing the appeal he ought to have been given the appellant an opportunity to show that there was no such delay. Such notice is mandatory before dismissing the appeal.4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the...

M/S. Alang Marine Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Tribunal in Order No.C-II/3111/WZB/2000 dated 27.10.2000 disposed of the application for waiver of pre deposit filed by the present applicants. Although the intimation for hearing on this application had been sent, the applicants were not present. The application was disposed of Ex-parte. After taking into accounts the various submissions made in the application the Tribunal directed them to predeposit the duty confirmed in the impugned proceedings and granted waiver of predeposit of penalty on such payment being made. The applicants instead of complying therewith filed an application for modification. Once again inspite of notice the applicants remained absent. Once again the Tribunal after taking into account all the written submissions disposed of the application maintaining the original order but giving more time to the applicants to make the predeposit. In paragraph 3 the Tribunal made the following observation: "We find this application to be an attempt to gain further ti...

Leather and Trim Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant was not entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on seats for automobile which it cleared and returned after re-precessing, the seating having been found to be defective or substandard. The reason advanced by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denial of the credit is that the appellant did not file declaration, under Rule 57G showing the defective seats manufactured by it to be inputs. He says that the declaration under Rule 57G filed in the division office did not show these to be inputs.3. Counsel for the appellant cites before me a declaration filed under Rule 57G on 18.1.1998 showing rejected automobile seats to be inputs.The show cause notice has been issued for credit taken from April to July, 1998. Ordinarily I would have accepted correctness of this declaration and decided the case. However, in the ligh...

Deco Mica Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 97,000/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Act with regard to alleged modvat credit incorrectly taken in April, 1994.2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that penalty under Section 11AC could not be invoked with respect to credit taken before its enactment in September, 1996 prima facie, has to be accepted.Accordingly I waive deposit of the penalty imposed.3. Duty of Rs. 96,333/- is also required to be paid. Counsel for the applicant contends that the duty has been paid in 1994 but has no evidence in support. On the other hand, the appellant while forwarding its appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) in 1997 had stated that application for waiver deposit of duty and penalty has been filed.Commissioner (Appeals)'s order asked for deposit of duty. There being no evidence of deposit of duty, if the duty is not shown to have been paid within six weeks from today and compliance not reported on 28.7.2001 the appeal is lia...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pacific Industries Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has held that the show cause notice issued to Pacific Industries which resulted in the order of the Additional Commissioner, Mumbai-III was without jurisdiction because it was issued by the Additional Commissioner, Mumbai-III whereas the assessee is in Mumbai-II. This finding is questioned in this appeal.3. The representative of the respondent accepts that this finding is incorrect and that the show cause notice cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction on this ground.4. Accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall now decide upon the appeal on merits....

Narmada Cement Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Despite an additional opportunity being given the counsel for the applicant is unable to demonstrate that credit was taken on goods in question prior to 23.7.1996, on which date the law was amended to bar credit on the capital goods in question.2. However, in view of the contention that 50% of the duty involved of Rs. 3,63,742/- was deposited in pursuance of the Commissioner (Appeals) stay order I waive deposit of the remaining duty and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and stay their recovery....

M/S. Sanvijay Re-rolling and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications have been filed for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs.9,34,011/- and the penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and imposition of further penalty of Rs.30 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The other appeal namely E/2705/-2000-Mum have been filed by the director of the firm, on whom a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The appellants in Appeal No. E/2704/2000-Mum are engaged in the manufacture of Re-rolled products of iron and steel. The factory of the appellant is spread over an area of 4 acres of land. The finished product coming out from the shop floor situated in one corner of the factory, is loaded in truck, weighed and shifted to a place near the gate to be kept ready for despatch. The show cause notice and the adjudication order demand duty under three heads as mentioned below:[I] Demand on the basis of difference between RG-1stock and physical...