Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Arti Leather (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In listing this appeal for admission the Registry has evidently been misled by the carelessness of the appellant by showing in the memorandum of appeal, the duty, fine and penalty to be nil. The amount involved seem to be Rs. 2.39 Lakhs, the amount which the Assistant Commissioner has dropped. Therefore there is no requirement that this appeal must be formally admitted. Having heard the departmental representative on the facts the appeal itself is taken upon for disposal.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the three show cause notices issued on 7.11.1988, 2.3.1989, 18.7.1989 by the Assistant Collector for recovery of modvat credit are barred by limitation or not. The Assistant Collector has held that the notice dated 7.11.1988 was barred by limitation to the extent that it demanded duty on credit taken beyond six months from the date of issue. He confirmed the proposal for duty in the other two notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed an appeal against t...

M/S. Sharda Textile Mills (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing the stay application we took up the Appeal No.E/2872/99-Mum for final disposal along with Appeal No. E/2873/99-Mum.2. These two appeals arise out of the same order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.3. M/s. Sharda Textile Mills are processor of cotton fabrics. Shri Ramesh Kagzi is the Managing Director thereof. On 13.9.95 on verification of physical stock, excess stock of 34,084.12 L.Mtrs. of processed MMF was found. It was also found that the RG1 register was not written for one day. Excess quantity of raw materials namely grey fabrics was also noticed and seized but was released thereafter. Show cause notice was issued alleging liability to confiscation of processed fabrics valued at Rs. 17,19,315.85 under Rules 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also alleging levy of penalty on the assessee and the Managing Director thereof under the said rules. The orders of confiscation were...

Shri Naresh A. Shah and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These 4 applications relate to 4 appeals arising out of the same order and, are, therefore, taken up together for disposal.2. We have heard Shri D.H. Shah advocate for the applicant Shri Naresh A. Shah and Shri J.C. Patel, advocate for the applicants Shri Jayesh Tanna and Shri Pradeep C. Borana. None appeared for the applicant Shri Mahesh Ganatra.3. The facts in brief are that two Advance Licences were obtained in the name of A-Z Enterprises, Masjid, Mumbai, the Proprietary concern owned by one Shri Ashok Malhtra. In fact, one Deepak Ganatara who had the broker's business in the premises with his brother Mahesh Ganatara.These two licences were sold to Shri Jayesh Tanna and Ashwin Shah through two brokers viz. N.A. Shah and Deepak Ganatara. The goods were imported by some other persons but were purchased on high seas sale basis by A-Z Enterprises. After clearance, the goods were disposed of in the market and nothing was used in the manufacture of goods. M/s.Chetna Plastic who were s...

M/S Omkar Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application, we find that the issue is small and can be disposed of at this stage. We therefore, waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs.20,689 and penalty of equal amount imposed on the appellant.2. The appellants were operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors' Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. the Commissioner had determined duty payable for the period June, 1999 to September, 1999 at Rs. 49,92,780/- Scrutiny of the record showed that they had less paid duty during the period to the extent of Rs.24.82,620/-. Show cause notice was issued demanding this sum and seeking imposition of penalty. Before the Commissioner, it was claimed that during the entire period one stenter out of the two was closed and therefore, there were no operation upon it. The Commissioner examined the claim and granted abatement for the period 2.7.99 to 30.9.99.However, the confirmed the duty as stated above for the date 1.6.99.Hence the appe...

M/S Triochem Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order dated 4.3.96, the appellants had been directed to furnish Bank Guarantee as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. The Bank Guarantee was filed on 10.11.95 and was valid for 3 years there from.For continuation of the proceedings, it was necessary that the Bank Guarantee to be in existence. Show cause notice was therefore, sent as to why the appeal should not be dismissed under Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act. The observation of the Tribunal in order No. CII/712/01/WZB dated 16.3.01 that in this situation the appeal would stand dismissed was also communicated to the appellants. Today when the case was posted for reporting compliance, we find that the appellants were not present nor was mere any evidence to show that the Bank Guarantee is still is existence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in terms of Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act....

M/S Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT707Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. NOL (India) Pvt. Ltd. filed IGM for cargo carried by vessel M.V., Neptune Jasper. 10 containers were not manifested which contained cargo totally valued at Rs. 2,14,88,146/- No reason was given for failure to file the IGM. M/s. Peacock Shipping Pvt. Ltd. filed the amendment. L/A was asked for from NOL by the Customs. On 8.5.96 Peacock Shipping Pvt. Ltd. apparently submitted some authority which is not on record. M/s NOL waived the show cause notice. For the hearing, an officer of M/s. Peacock Shipping Pvt. Ltd appeared. It was claimed that due to the mistake committed by M/s. Peacock Shipping Pvt. Ltd. M/s.NOL could not file the manifest containing these containers. The Commissioner held that the cargo was liable to confiscation under provisions of Sec. 111(f) and 111(g) and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s. NOL. The penalty was paid by M/s. NOL on 22.5.96. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. 2. We asked Shri Sonavane appearing for the appellants as...

M/S Milton Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Milton Plastics Ltd. (MPL) and M/s. Milton Plastic Industries are sister concerns and related person in terms of Sec. 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. M/s. MPI manufactured thermo flasks and discharged the burden of duty on prices at which the goods were sold by M/s. MPI. M/s. MPL effected clearances at their depot gate as well as at the gate of their Clearing and Forwarding Agents. Duty was to be calculated on the price prevailing at different places. The quantum of duty would be higher where the goods were cleared from the premises of C&F Agents. During the search of the office of M/s. MPI a document was found being a memo from M/s MPL to M/s. MPI pointing out that during the period April, 1996 to August, 1997. M/s. MPI had short paid duty of Rs. 12,77,773.82. This authenticity of this document is accepted by both M/s. MPI and M/s. MPL. As to why the differential duty was not paid was explained by the officers of MPI. Show cause notice dated 14.12.99 was issued seeking...

M/S Gulab Impex Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both the sides on the stay application, we have taken up the appeal itself for final disposal on granting perform waiver of the confirmed duty of Rs. 8,29,319/- and penalty of Rs. 40,000/- imposed on the appellants.2. The appellants imported certain goods against a Value Based Advance Licence in 1944. Show cause notice dated 29.1.99 was issued alleging that the conditions of Notification No.203/92 CUS were contravened in as much as in the manufacture of export gods credit of input stage duty had been availed of. The Commissioner passed ex-parte orders confirming the duty and imposing the penalty observing that no reply had been filed and (sic) none appeared for the hearing.3. In the appeal memorandum as well as in the personal hearing it is submitted that the show causes notice or the intimation for personal hearing was not received by the appellant. It is claimed that the appellant is the transferee holder of the licence. It is claimed that for extend period to be in...

Shri Vinayak Baburao Kale Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application has been filed for restoring Appeal No.C/358/2000-Mum which was filed in a joint way and which had certain defects which were pointed out by the Registry and which were remained unrectified. During the course of the arguments, Shri Shroff, ld.advocate for the applicants invited our attention to the facts that originally when the appeal was filed it was not signed by the appellants but by the advocate. He fairly concedes that there is no appeal technically speaking filed by the appellant. Under the circumstances, we have no other option but hold that the earlier appeal is not appealed in the eye of law as it was signed by the ld. advocate and not by the appellant.2. However, Shri Shroff in his usual way tries to persuade us to give liberty to give him time to application for condonation of delay in fling the appeal by the appellant who is reported to be illiterate and uneducated. Without giving any views on this matter, any person can always file application fo...

M/S. Apte Amalgamations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the stay application was called out, we find that the issue stands covered by earlier judgement and therefore take up the appeal for final hearing on granting waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 16,47,554/- and penalty of Rs. 16,48,000/-.2 The appellants used Fuel Oils and Low Sulphur Heavy Stock for production of steam which was used in the manufacture of t heir final product namely Sulfamethoxazole. The modvat credit on such inputs was denied by the Assistant Commissioner holding that there was no direct nexus with the inputs of the final product and confirmed the reversal of the credit taken. The Commissioner (Appeals) citing Rules 57C and 57D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 upheld the order. Hence the appeal.3. In identical circumstances in the following judgements the eligibility of such inputs was accepted.[1] Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai-III [1997 (93) ELT 213 (Tribunal) [2] Sudarshan Chemical Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai ...