Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. imported a consignment in December, 1994 of technical documents and catalogues. The department accepted the value declared of the consignment of DM. 5240/- and cleared the consignment. The company imported a second consignment of such material, and filed on 26.12.1994 a bill of entry for its clearance. The value of these goods was declared to be DM 5500.00 CIF equal to Rs. 1,18,677/-.2. These documents and other technical material were supplied in pursuance of a collaboration agreement between the appellant and Schaudt Maschinenbau GmbH of West Germany. The agreement provided that for supply of technical information to be provided by the German collaborator the importer would pay DM 500,000. Notice was issued to the importer proposing to apply this value of DM 500,000 to both these consignments together. The notice dated 18.2.1995 invoked the extended period of limitation contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the A...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. M/S. Asian Chemicals Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether it is mandatory for the dealers issuing invoices who were unregistered at the time of sale of inputs to register for availment of modvat credit. The issue has been settled in favour of the department vide Larger Bench decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [2000(116) E.L.T. 364. Hence, following the same, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No.NK(1580)149/96 dated 25.3.96 and restore the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division K.I., Mumbai made in Order-in-Original No. K-I/224/1995 dated 10.5.95. The appeal of the Department is allowed.(Dictated in Court)...

M/S Gmp Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for stay of collection of wrongly availed modvat in terms of Notification No.177/86.2. Since the issue is covered, the appeals were taken up for disposal after waiving pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides.3. The question involved in these two appeals is the quantum of modvat credit which can be availed of by the purchaser of the raw materials from the Export Oriented Units.The issue was considered by the North Regional Bench in two cases Weston Electronics Ltd. vs. Collector in Final Order No.A/766/94-NRB and Commissioner v.Weston Electronics Ltd. 1997(95) E.L.T. 624. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat vs CCE, Mumbai.III(2000(120)E.L.T.8000 has approved the judgment in dictum laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner vs.Weston Electronics Ltd. (95)ELT 624. Hence, following the same,I set aside the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeasl), Mumbai.V and allow the appeals. I also ord...

Shri Mahendra A. Gandhi and M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. It has been represented before me that the appellants in both the cases have availed of the benefit of KVSS 1998. Hence, both the appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Skf Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In view of the fact that the issue is covered by the larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. [1999(108) ELT 47, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal after waiving pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides.2. The appellants manufacture various ball and roller bearings falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have claimed modvat credit under Rule 57Q in respect of the following products: 3. The issue involved stands decided in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd vs CCE (1999(108)ELT 47) which has been referred to and followed by another Larger Bench decision consisting of 5 Members in the case of CCE, Indone vs Surya Roshni Ltd [2001(128) E.L.T. 293 (Tri LB). Hence, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise & Customs Pune made in Order-in-Appeal No.PI/NK-306/2000 dated 31.5.2000 is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief ...

M/S. Rpg Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is availment of modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the central Excise Rules. The period in dispute is from April 95 to April, 96. It is the case of the assessee that sub-rule 5 of Rule 57R provides for denial of modvat credit paid on capital goods if the manufacturer claims depreciation under Sec. 35 of the Income Tax Act on that part of the capital goods which represents the amount of a specific duty. Subsequently, this provision was amended from 23.7.96 including the term "revenue expenditure" in the said sub-rule. The period in dispute is prior to 23.7.96. Hence, the department cannot take advantage of the amendment. Prima-facie I am of the view that the assessee has a strong case. Hence, I completely waive the pre-deposit of Rs. 5,000/- towards penalty and stay the recovery thereof.(Dictated in Court)...

AshwIn Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT428Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order under reference, the Tribunal had confirmed the penalty imposed on Ashwin Mehta, upholding the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that he was concerned with the disposal of the goods. The Additional Collector had imposed penalties on various persons under Section 112(a)(1) of the Act.2. While dealing with the appeal of S.S. Bindra in the same order, the Tribunal had noted that penalty under clause (a) of Section 112 of the Act could not be imposed on Bindra. It noted that the import was not illegal. What was illegal was the subsequent sale of the goods contrary to law. It is contention of the counsel for Mehta, by the same reasoning, the penalty imposed on Mehta for dealing with the goods after their importation is contrary to law. The mistake in the order lies in overlooking this obvious fact.3. The Departmental representative is not in a position to rebut this claim. It is also clear from these facts that this is an error apparent on record. It does not need any grea...

M/S. Uni Deri Lend Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen.Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is whether spares for Sand/Shot Blasting Machine is eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Since the issue is covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1996(86)ELT 613, I have taken up the appeal for disposal after waiving pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides. Since the issue is covered by the said decision of the Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order holding that the assessee is entitled to claim modvat credit. The appal is allowed with consequential relief. In view thereof, the stay petition also stands disposed of....

ispat Industries Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we dispense with the re-deposit requirement and proceed to dispose of the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. In all these cases it is the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellants have availed input stage under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and also cleared the goods duty free under notification 203/92-Cus dated 19.5.1992 against value based advance licence. The non-availment of input stage credit is a requirement for availing of duty free clearance. Since these appellants appeared to have availed double benefit to which they were not entitle the benefit of the notification has been denied and the demands confirmed.3. We have heard the learned counsels and learned DR. In the case of Ispat Industries Limited and Amoli Organics Limited it is the case of the appellants that although they have availed input stage credit they have reversed the same and paid inte...

M/S. Him-pushp Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is whether modvat credit to be claimed on waste generated during the production. Prima-facie, the assessee has got a case in view of the judgement of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. vs. CC, Bombay [2000 (120) E.L.T. 218]. Hence, following the same, I waive the pre-deposit of the amounts due under the impugned order and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal....