Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nestle India Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR307

K.K. Baam, J.1. This application is made on behalf of the applicant, Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, seeking a direction that under sub-section (1) of section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer to the High Court, the question of law referred to in paragraph 8, which reads as under :-'1. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 57-U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, requires to state any ground on which the denial of credit is founded?2. Whether from the Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 57-U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with the reply filed by the assessee on 23-8-95 could it be said that the Assistant Commissioner had travelled beyond the allegations in the said Show Cause Notice?3. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 57-U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, could be said to be bad in law as regards the goods specified in Annexure B thereto for want of a specific ground mentioned in the notice that the...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has said that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit had been availed in their manufacture.2. The import licences under which the import was made No.1524097/93 and No. 1524117/93, both say that they are as Quantity Based Advance Licences with the limiting factors of both quantity and value. The DEEC book issued to the appellant also indicates the applicability of notification 204/92. However we are not in a position to say that the goods were cleared in terms of notification 204/92. The importer has not taken this claim in its reply to the notice,and the copy of the bill of entry has not been produced.3. Having regard to the considerable doubt that exists, we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery....

Pioneer International and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. With consent of both sides appeals taken up for disposal after waiving deposit.2. In each of the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held that the benefit of notification 203/92 would not be available to the goods imported by each of the appellants, on the ground that one of the conditions subject to which exemption is available that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods, had been contravened.3. The contention of the counsel for each of the appellants is that the Commissioner has not considered the reply that was filed by the importer. Pioneer International filed its reply on 23.4.1999, contending that modvat credit had not been taken. Popatlal Mavji & Sons filed its reply on 12.4.1999, claiming that the exported goods were exempted from central excise duty under notification 15/94. The replies are seen to have been received in the department. Therefore the contention of the Commissioner that no reply was filed is ...

Globus Stores (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT607Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 31.49 lakhs approximately and penalty of Rs. 36.49 lakhs. The applicant purchased components of central air-conditioning plant and stored them in the department stores. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the ground that by putting together the components the applicant manufactured central air-conditioning plant, without paying the duty payable on that plant. The plant has also been confiscated on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the plant, as such, is not marketable. It cannot be taken from the department stores to any other place for any other purposes whatsoever as such plant. Its components have first to be dismantled before they can be removed from the department stores; in such a case it ceases to be an air-conditioning plant.3. The Commissioner says that the plant is not marketable and relies upon section 2(a) of the interpretation rule.4....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sea Bridge Maritime Agencies Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT701Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for stay of operation of the Tribunal's order disposing of the appeal before it and of its order dismissing the reference application arising out of that order.2. Obviously, there is no question of staying operation of the order dismissing the reference application. There is no provision in law for any appeal against that order. The only course left to the department is to apply to the High Court under sub-section (3) of Section 130 of the Act. The Tribunal does have power to stay operation of the its order pending disposal of an application under sub-section (3) of Section 130 of the Act by the High Court. No copy of any such application filed before the High Court has been attached; nor is it a claim that such an application has been filed. The application does not have any other reason in support of the prayer for staying the operation of the Tribunal's order....

thermax Surface Coatings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit, with consent of both sides.2. In pursuance of a contract with Indian Refrigeration Co., Chennai, the appellant set up a paint shop in the factory premises of that company, to be used by it for manufacture of paint. The appellant purchased components from the market, and assembled them at site, resulting in the emergence of the plant. The notice issued to the appellant alleged that by this fact the appellant manufactured a paint shop classifiable under heading 84.79 of the Tariff which was liable to duty under that heading. Apart from demanding duty, the notice proposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty.3. One of the contentions that the appellant took up before the Commissioner in the reply to the notice was that, assuming that a plant had been set up, it would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in no...

ina Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty on the applicant of Rs.36,500/- under rule 11AC. The duty demanded of Rs.36,500/- has already been deposited.2. Although the appeal and the stay application are stated to have been filed by Ina Plastics there is a prayer in each by them for setting aside the penalty imposed on Sunil D. Sanghvi, partner of the firm.Counsel for the applicants has been informed that in accordance with the rules and decisions on the subject, the appeal and the stay applications are each considered to have been filed by Ina Plastics and this order is therefore confined to that application.3. Having regard to the fact that duty has already been deposited, and the nature of the issue involved, we direct the applicant to deposit Rs.10,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.Thereupon we waive deposit of the remaining amount of penalty and stay its recovery....

Regent Exim International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

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 holding that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of the exported goods. It is the contention of the appellant that it did not receive the show cause notice at all. In order to verify this contention we had called for department's case records. These records contain an envelope in which the show cause notice was sent to the premises of the appellant. The envelope bears the postal endorsement "left" and has been returned.3. Thus, no notice has been served on the applicant. The departmental representative says that this endorsement is correct because the order of the Commissioner, which was sent by post to be same address has been received by the appellant. However this does not mean that the appellant is deemed to have ...

international Services Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs.53.61 lakhs approximately and penalty of Rs.53 lakhs.3. Duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the ground that the applicant manufactured and cleared chairs during the period from October, 1988 to August, 1992 without paying the duty due on them. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of this conclusion. The evidence that the Commissioner has relied upon, consists of statements of various parties, all related to Royal Furniture Ltd., a public limited company established in September, 1999. The applicant is a proprietary concern of M.A. Lokhandwala who is a director of Royal Furniture Ltd. The applicant firm however has been continuing to exist and function as a trader.4. The order of the Commissioner was passed in proceedings common to both concerns. The statements of the parties whom the the notice relied upon does not prima facie indicate any manufacture of ...

Royal Furniture Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals are taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner has found that Royal Furniture Ltd. Manufactured chairs and cleared them without payment of duty and, consequently demanded duty from he company and imposed penalties on its and on other two appellants who are the directors.3. The evidence upon which the Commissioner had relied consist of statements of various parties, such as job workers who have alleged or suppressed the particulars of chairs which the company assembled, their which the company assembled, their employees, and the employees of the company itself. A request was made, in reply to the show cause notice, of cross examination of these persons, by letter dated 29.6.1994. The Commissioner has denied this request on the ground that the department had not relied upon any oral evidence and the case was made only on the documents of which copies were given to the noticees. We find it dif...