Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common question for consideration in these appeals in the eligibility to modvat credit of the appellant of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of potassium carbonate which was subsequently exported under Duty Drawback Scheme. Notices were issued to it proposing recovery of modvat credit that it took on the ground that the benefit of drawback under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 has been claimed. The Commissioner in each case has confirmed the duty.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant is that there is no provision in the rule relating to modvat to deny credit only because drawback has been claimed on the exported goods manufactured by the assessee. He further contends that rule 3 of Drawback Rules provides that the amount of additional duty of Customs Duty available as modvat credit would not be an element in determining the drawback payable. Therefore, he says that the Commissioner's conclusion is not maintainable.3....

Swadeshi Mills Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen.Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. It is contention in the application that the Tribunal has well considered the ground in the appeal that, since a notice for recovery of refund erroneously sanctioned was not issued within six months from the relevant date, the department's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not sustainable. The bench had noted this, while disposing of the appeal before it, the earlier bench of the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the Commissioner that the refund claim of Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. was barred by limitation, noting that duty had been paid under protest. It thereupon, remanded the matter to dispose of the refund claim in accordance with provisions of amended Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. That being the case, the contention relating to failure of the department to issue notice cannot be entertained now. The earlier order of the Tribunal has acquired finality....

Marnel Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 8,47,919 has been demanded and penalty of Rs. 80,000/- imposed on the applicant on the ground that since input stage credit was availed of in the manufacture of the exported product, benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus would not be available on the exported goods.2. Counsel for the applicant says that the applicant being a transferee of the licence, was not required to furnish evidence to the department relating to input stage modvat credit; that possibly has to be discharged by the licence in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in Goodluck Industries vs CC, Calcutta 3. The departmental representative says that decision needs reconsideration, for the reason that there is nothing in the notification which exempts from the operation of the condition relating to modvat on the goods imported by the transferee.4. While we note the contentions, the facts do not prima facie indicate any ground for invoking the extended period contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of...

Htc Diesel Engines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT117Tri(Mum.)bai

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/-, permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine 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 5 engines of below 10 and one box of spare parts, cleared from the appellant's factory. The driver of the van had 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 themanufacturer 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 who...

Shahad Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal against the order of the Dy. Commissioner on the failure of the appellant before him to deposit the entire amount of penalty imposed on it. In imposing the penalty, the Dy. Commissioner has relied on an earlier order No.YPP/847/M.III/99 dated 15.9.1999 of the Commissioner (Appeals) That order has been set aside by the Tribunal on appeal NO.E/1148/2000-BOM filed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that in determining the assessable value of the Potassium Silicate manufactured by the assessee, the cost of the drums supplied by the customers in which the product was packed should not be included. Hence, the reliance by the Dy. Commissioner on the earlier order is not valid....

Saurashtra Ball Pen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the notice issued to the appellant demanding duty on the ground that benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus will not be available to the goods imported under Advance Licence, for the reason that input stage credit had been availed of in the manufacture of goods exported. He has also imposed penalty.3. Representative of the appellant says that the exported goods have been exempted by Notification No. 83/90 CE and that an earlier notice issued to the appellant on identical ground had been dropped by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Mumbai.4. We find that Order No. 1544/2000/CAC/CC/A.C.B. dated 23.11.2000 of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) had dropped the notice issued to the appellant demanding duty on the same ground in respect of another consignment, after noting that the goods exported are not liable to excise duty a...

Umiya Steel Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The common ground in these two applications, that the issue is covered by a decision of the Tribunal in Sirhind Steel Ltd. (Appeal No.E/4325/99 and others) is not acceptable. In that order, the Tribunal had held that the annual capacity of production of rolling mills was to be determined under Rule 4 and not under Rule 5 of the relevant Rules.The order of the Commissioner impugned in the appeal does not show under what rule the annual capacity has been determined....

Commissioner of Cen. Excise and Vs. Apex Electricals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The department's appeal does not challenge the findings of Commissioner in regard to the merits and it only challenges the findings in his order that penalty is not to be imposed on the directors of the company and other noticees. The question of challenging that conclusion in this one appeal against the company, therefore, does not arise....

A.H. Wadia Charity Trust and ors. Vs. Neville Jathan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj723

R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner trust has impugned the judgment and order dated 6-6-2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No. 2 of 2000 filed by the Trust and Trustees against the judgment and order of the 6th Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 314 of 1994 filed by the respondent No. 1, concerned employee, under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act to challenge the order of termination dated 6-7-1994 on the ground that he was found guilty of habitual late attendance in the office.2. The charge against the respondent employee who had put in 19 years of clean and unblemished service, was that he had attended the office late on 11 days in September, 1993, 20 days in October 1993 and 14 days in December 1993. Itwas further alleged against him that in the months of April and May 1994 he had attended the office very late. By a letter dated 7-6-1994 he was called upon to show cause why he sho...

Yusuf Suleman Hattia Vs. V.M. Dosi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1349; 2001(4)BomCR545; 2001CriLJ4830; 2001(4)MhLj76

S.S. Parkar, J.1. By this appeal the order of convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, on 29th August, 1994, convicting and sentencing him under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 746 of 1991 has been challenged.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is as follows :On the night of 22nd September, 1991 Intelligence Officer of N.C.B., P.W. 1 Shahasane received information that the appellant-accused, a South African National, was scheduled to leave Bombay for Osaka by Zamblan Airways flight No. QZ-081 on 23.9.1991 at 1.15 hours and likely to carry mandrax tablets concealed in his baggage. The said information was reduced to writing by him. It was signed by the informant and countersigned by P.W. 1 Shahasane and kept in a sealed envelope. P. W. 1 discussed the matter with Deputy Director Mr. Kakkar on telephone, who asked him to take action. Thereafter, P. W. 1 went to Departure Module-II near baggageX-ray machine op...