Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Vineet Fibre (P) Lt., Sura ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for stay of implementation of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) Surat-I, who by the impugned orders had held that there was no "plane" muchless mens rea is not entering debit entries in RG 23 A until the clerk make in the entries was forcefully prevented from doing so. he further held that the clerk was not permitted to complete the document entries. During the course of hearing this has been emphasised before me by the Counsel for the assessees.2. The Ld. Counsel representing one of the respondents namely Vipul Textile Industries Ltd. [Stay Application No. E/Stay-704/2000-Mum in Appeal No. E/937/2000] that the amount of duty alleged to be due has been already collected by the department by encashment of the bank guarantee. The stay applications do not provide for any grounds of stay. I therefore dismiss the stay applications....

M/S. Kancast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is whether Ceramic Sand Moulds is entitled for modvat credit or not. The issue is squarely covered by the judgement of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras [1996 (82) ELT 575 (Tribunal)] which follows the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs.Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises [1989 (42) ELT 214 (S.C.)] I allow the appeal of the appellant, set aside the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) Pune, made in Order-in-Appeal No.P-253/94 dt. 30.6.94 granting consequential relief if any....

Total Lubricants India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT682Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 5.67 crores demanded from Nandan Petrochem Limited ('Nandan' for short) and penalty imposed on it totalling or Rs.5.86 crores under Section 11AC of the Act, penalty under Rule 209A of Rs. 2 crores imposed on Total Lubricants Indian Limited ('Total' for short); Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on Vasant Bourde, Kanwar Kant Mehta Bhimsen Sharma respectivelly, all employees of Total; Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- on Hemant Shah and Shreenarayana Agrawal respectivelly, employees of Nandan.3. Nandan is engaged as a job worker in blending and lubricating oils out of materials entirely supplied to it by Total. It delivers these oils to the representatives of Total, who sells them. Nandan declared the value of the oil on the basis of its cost of manufacture in accordance with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints Vs UOI 1989 (39) ELT 493. The notice issued to it and the other applicants before us proposed ...

M/S. Mercury Laboratories Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT963Tri(Mum.)bai

1. his is an application for waiver of payment of duty of Rs. 20,000/- and the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The issue involved is whether declaration under Rule 57G is mandatory to be filed or not before utilisation of the credit of the input. The case of the appellant is even though credit is available, he has no utilised for the past two years. He therefore states that he has strong case, he trice show the decision of the Collector (Appeals) in the case of IN RE: SRI SARADHA MILLS [2000(115) ELT 879 (Commr.Appl.)] I am of the view that I do not take cognizance of such decision even though it may be reported in [2000 (115) ELT 879]. If this is allowed some of the decision of even Assistant Commissioner's will be cited before me. However, I have to state that it is admitted fact that the assessees had paid Rs. 10,000/- out of the demand of duty of Rs. 20,000/-. Hence I waive the predeposit of remaining sum of the duty and penalty and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the ap...

Ralson Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The miscellaneous application filed by the applicant for adding to the grounds of appeal is not listed for hearing today but with consent of departmental representative taken up for disposal. After hearing both sides on the stay application we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal demands duty and impose penalty on the appellant on the ground that it wrongly availed benefit of notification 203/92 in respect of the goods imported by it under an advance licence. The Commissioner finds that the condition in the notification that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported products has been contravened.3. Counsel for the appellant contends that it did not receive not at all. He further contends that the question of taking modvat credit does not arise. The six consignments that were exported consisted of tyres and tubes for bicycles. These were not liable to e...

M/S. Vanaprabha Esters and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants who is engaged in the manufacture of goods coming within Chapter No. 32.38, and 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing modvat benefit scheme. Show cause notice dt. 24.10.94 was issued for denying credit of amount of Rs. 76,118,61/- out of which they got the benefit of Rs. 54605/- at the appellate level. The reasons for denying the benefit of Rs. 21,530/- has been mentioned in the Collector's order as follows: "Regarding 'Sale in transit', the appellant submitted that the goods were purchased through M/s. B.R. Chemicals whose name appeared in the invoice. The inputs have been received directly from the manufacturer's premises of B.R. Chemicals. In this case I fin that neither the invoice bears their own name nor it is endorsed in their favour. The appellant themselves have admitted that invoice No. 000022 dated 27.04.94 is not in their own name Furthermore, it has not been placed on record even in the appeal file. Accordin...

M/S. Jkh Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants had entered for export 'Calamus Roots' being bulk drugs vide shipping bill dated 20.9.94. These goods were seized and confiscated by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs in the belief that ITC Public Notice No. 47(PN)/92-97 dated 30.3.94 had placed these goods in the Negative List of exports. In making the order, the Asstt.Commissioner dealt with the certificate given by the Horticulture to the effect that the roots were cultivated and were not obtained from the wild.2. The Commissioner (appeals) having upheld the order in toto, this appeal is filed.3. Shri Balani placed on record ETC Public Notice No.52(PN)/92-97 dated 1.8.94 whereby the earlier Public notice dated 30.3.94 was amended restricting the prohibition to plants etc. 'obtained from the wild'.The subject consignment was entered for export after the amendment was made. A certificate was given to the effect that the goods were cultivated and not wild. In the face of the amendment and the certificate, the belief...

Maha Gujarat Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is engaged in re-rolling flat steel products and has for this purpose in its factory three rolling mills. Its liability to duty was determined by the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, taking into account the six parameters prescribed for this purpose in the Rules. By its letter dated 31.3.1998 it signified to the assistant Commissioner its intention to reduce one of these factors, the distance of pinion stand, in its last rolling stand, requesting corresponding reduction in the capacity. The Commissioner found that as a result of the its annual capacity would be reduced to 22102 tonnes. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that where the capacity determined under Rule 3 falls below the actual quantity of production in 1996-97 the capacity shall be based on that production.The appellant's production i...

M/S. Natraj Packaging and M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. During the course of hearing of the stay petition it transpires that the appellant has paid half amount. The amount of the duty demanded namely Rs.15,000/- in each case. Hence I direct the waiver of deposit of remainder of the sums of duty and penalty and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the hearing of the appeals....

M/S. Spl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1, This is an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No. 481/2000 dat. 1.5.2000 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In paragraphs 5 of the impugned order it is stated as follows: "However, as regards the other ground, I find that the appellants have no case, as they have failed to produce any evidence that the goods in question were received by them in their factory at Kadi. The bill of entry is in the name of their unit at Rohtak and in such cases, there is a need to endorse the bill of entry showing that the entire consignment covered under the respective bill of entry is transferred to the other unit, at Kadi unit in the present case. There is no evidence available on record to verify this fact and therefore, I have to accept the findings of the lower authority that there is no declaration or intimation with the department about the transfer of consignment from Rohtak to Kadi. So far as the contentions of the appellants that t...