Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

M/S Sanghi Organisation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By our order No. C-II/1123/WZB/2001 dated 24.4.2001 we had directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs.14 lakhs towards duty out of the total demand of Rs.24,45,783/-. Shri V.S. Nankani fairly concedes that points made by him during the course of early hearing have been fully recorded and he feebly mentioned about financial difficulty which his client is facing now after the receipt of the orderer. He, on instructions from his clients, states that he can furnish open ended bank guarantee for the said amount (i.e. Rs.13.5 lakhs). We have considered this and we direct by modifying our earlier order that the applicants to furnish open ended bank guarantee till the hearing of the appeal and to months thereafter within 14 days from today, i.e. by 30th July, 2001. The matter will come up for compliance on 31st July, 2001.The applicants shall keep the bank guarantee alive until the appeal is posted for hearing and disposed thereof....

Soma Textiles and Industries Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by Soma Textiles & Industries is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 80,58,195 approx. and penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs; application by Suresh Bhutara and Kailash B. Arvatiya, employees of this company are for waiver of deposit of penalty on them of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs.2. The duty has been demanded, the penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that in determining the cost under Rule 6B(ii) of the Valuation Rules of the cotton yarn manufactured and captively consumed by it, the manufacturer did not include administrative overheads, bonus, gratuity paid to staff and interest on capital. The demand covers the period from 1.4.94 to 3.9.96, and the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act has been invoked by alleging suppressing from the department that these elements were not included in the cost of manufacture. The show cause notice proceeds on the basis that while these elements were included in returns that ...

M/S Hindustan Organic Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1321Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides, we find that an inadvertent typographical error has crept into our order NO. C-II/1085-92/WZB/2000 dated 7.4.2000. We therefore direct that in paragraph 4 of the said order for the words and figures "sub-heading 2502"; the following shall be read, namely "sub-heading 2505"....

Akash Agarwal and M/S Shivani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Prayer is made for withdrawal of the appeal. Granted. Dismissed as withdrawn....

Rajesh B. Shah Vs. Cc, Ahmedabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

...

M/S Ratilal Hemraj Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, we take up the case for final disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty as prayed for.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs. 7,90,424/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the present appellants on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92-Cus.was not available to them inasmuch as credit of input stage duty had been taken in the making of export products.3. The Commissioner in making this ex parte order observed that no reply was received to the show cause notice nor did the importers appear for personal hearing.4. The counsel for the appellants states that the show cause notice was answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, Mumbai.The importers had filed the complete reply to the show cause notice. It is submitted that no notice was received by them for the personal hearing. Citing relevant case law it is pleaded that the appellant is a transferee licence holder and there is no l...

M/S Apte Amalgamations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants requested for adjournment. However, on perusal of the facts of the case, we find that the main appeal itself can be taken up for disposal.2. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the appellants had contravened the prescription of notification 203/92-Cus. dated 19.5.1992 as amended inasmuch as the input stage credit had been availed of in the manufacture of export products. He observed that the appellants had not filed any reply to the show cause notices nor had they appeared for personal hearing. In his ex parte order, therefore, he confirmed demand of Rs. 37,36,548/-, charged interest thereupon and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,87,000/- on the appellants. hence the appeal.3. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that due reply was filed. It is also claimed that the input stage credit taken was reversed. It is claimed that the bill of entry referred in the show cause notice is not appearing in their DEEC book at all and may not pertain to imports made by ...

Saral Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC53Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of insulating varnish, based on polyester manufactured by the appellant.2. The dispute is applicability of sub-heading 10 and sub-heading 40 of heading 32.08 to the classification of such varnish. Heading 32.08 and its sub-heading read as follows: "32.08 Paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based on synthetic polymers of chemically modified natural polymers, or natural resins, whether or not modified, dispersed or dissolved in a non-aqueous medium; solutions as defined in Note 3 to this Chapter 3208.30 Based on cellulose nitrate or other cellulose derivatives 3208.40 Insulating varnish 3. In his order, the Commissioner says that since the varnish in question is based on polyester it will be classified under sub-heading 4. Although the departmental representative emphasises this contention, we are not able to agree that except for sub-heading 90 any one of the sub-heading is more specific than any o...

M.H. Mills and Industries Ltd., K.C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.52 crores approx. demanded from M.H. Mills, the manufacturer and penalty on it of Rs. 1.05 crores approx., fine of Rs. 15 lakhs for redemption of plant and machinery; and penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs on K.C. Shah, A.S. Tripathi and Rs. 7.5 lakhs on D.I. Raval, senior vice president, excise officer and cost accountant respectively.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that in determining the cost under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules of the cotton yarn manufactured and captively consumed by it, the manufacturer did not include administrative overheads, bonus, gratuity paid to staff and interest on capital. The demand covers the period from 1.4.94 to 3.9.96, and the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act has beeb invoked by alleging suppressing from the department that these elements were not included in the cost of manufacture...

M/S Jeevan Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Against a Value Based Advance Licence, the applicants imported certain goods. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of customs duty leviable on the goods imported free of duty,, on the ground that in the manufacture of export products, modvat credit had been utilized.The importers showed that in the case of one shipping bill, full reversal had been made. In the case of the second shipping bill, reversal was made and interest was paid but after the passing of the adjudication order. Relief is sought on the ground that total reversal had been made.2. On perusal of the DEEC book, we find that the number of the advance licence is the same but the concerned notification is shown as 204/92-Cus. For goods covered under this notification, the condition of non-utilization may not attract. It is however not known how in the face of the wrong mention of the notification number, clearance was allowed by the Customs. In the light of these phenomena, we grant waiver of pre-deposit as pra...