Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Mayur Dyechem Intermediates Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The amount of duty involved is Rs 84,167/- (although the applicant has wrongly mentioned it as Rs 70,757/-), and a penalty of rs 2500/-.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice and has filed written submissions relating to the appeal.3. The amount has been demanded on the ground that the modvat credit that the applicant took was incorrect because it was taken on invoices, which did not contain the particulars required by law.4. The issues are arguable. The applicant states that it has already deposited Rs 42,500/- in compliance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).5. Therefore, deposit of the remaining duty and penalty are waived, and their recovery stayed....

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, Nasik Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the common order impugned in these two appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that 11 gate passes issued by manufacture of the goods dated 31.3.1994 were not valid in July, 1994 for the appellant to take credit. The reason that the Assistant Commissioner advances was that notification 16/94 dated 30.3.1994 which specified documents under which credit should be taken under Rule 57G did not recognise such documents.2. The representative of the appellants says that the appellant could not take credit earlier because the consignment were held up by the carrier of the goods on account of some dispute between him and the manufacture of the goods. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE Vs. Travancore Chemicals & Manufacturing Company Ltd. 1997 (71) ECR 381 in support of his proposition that gate passes issued prior to 31st March 1994 were valid for taking credit even after 30th June, 1994.3. The departmental represent...

Jetex Carburattors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1100Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant, Jetex Carburettors Pvt Ltd, the manufacturer of carburettors, which are made for automobile engines. These are made of zinc alloy with a small quantity of aluminium. The order of the Commissioner(Appeals), on appal by this manufacturer, demands duty on two counts, and imposed a penalty on it.2. The first issue is the liability to confiscation of the zinc or scrap of zinc alloy that the appellant obtained in its factory, during the process of making the carburettors from the allows. The quantity of scrap, valued at Rs 2.73 lakhs approx which the officers found in the appellant's factory has been confiscated on the ground that the accounts relating to its manufacture had not been maintained. The representative of the appellant does not deny the failure to a maintain the account. He says that duty had been paid on it and therefore the contravention was not very significant. The Commissioner has recognised the fact that such failure to maintain the account was not wilful...

Shri V.K. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal No. E/4263/95 SB (WR) of Shri V.K. Jain it has been represented by Ld. Counsel Shri V.Shrredharan this mater has been settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Rules 1998 and he field declaration issued under Rule 5(a) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rules, 1998. Hence this appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn....

Manikgarh Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue to be decided in this appeal is the eligibility for consideration as capital goods of various items. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that they were not used for producing or processing or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product and therefore they would not be capital goods.2. The goods in question consist of electrical transformer, instrument cooling fan type, impeller shaft/FRB rear, ICWT Track F/E, spare for fluidomat, fluid coupling, shear pulley and super refractories. It is not in dispute that although none of these items is used directly in the manufacture of the final product, they are essentially components of the plant of the appellant without which the finished goods cannot be manufactured. Therefore, by applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd vs. CCE 1999 (32) RLT 379 these goods would be entitled to be considered as capital goods....

M/S Asil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1095Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported goods described in the commercial invoice as "Hot Rolled Coils Seconds". The test certificate described the product as "Hot Rolled Steel Coils of SAE 1050". The certificate also claimed the coils to be of "seconds quality as they are residual balances". The goods were examined on first check basis. The expert mentioned that the coils were oiled and pickled and that they were of prime grade. It was believed that the goods were of tube making quality (TMQ) which required a specific licence for their import in terms of ITC Notification No. 35 (RE-98)/1997-2002 dt. 11.12.1998. The proposal was for confiscation of the goods under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importers waived the issue of a formal show cause notice. The Commissioner heard the importers. Citing exhaustively from the HSN sub-notes, he held that by virtue of hot rolled sheets being picked and oiled, they were deemed to be "further worked" and thus fell out of the beneficial...

Blue Blends Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai

2. On merits, the question for consideration int his appeal, the eligibility to modvat credit of that portion of the duty paid on beta naphthol out of the duty paid on the raw materials used in its manufacture available as set off in terms of notification 432/86, has decided against the appellant by the Tribunal in Abhijit Chemicals vs CCE 3. The other ground is that the demand is barred by limitation. The appellant agrees that the account and RT12 return submitted to the department did not show, separately, that part of the duty on the beta napthol which was paid form the set off amount. It is however contended that gate passes showed to be the case.4. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The gate passes bear the endorsement that SED was paid and debited to the personal ledger account. The duty paid in set off vide entry no and personal ledger account number. All that can be gathered from this is that part of the duty was paid by the manufacturer for some amount ...

M/S Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of duty of Rs. 67, 90,646/-.2. The appellants manufacture excisable products utilising the modvat credit facility both under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The common allegation was that certain goods imported under the project import regulations were covered under Rule 57A instead of under Rule 57Q. It was also alleged that the capital goods were not installed in the factory but were cleared on being worked upon to their customers. After hearing the assessees, the Dy. Commissioner passed single order confirming the duty as above, after permitting utilisation of credit of Rs. 4, 54,60,347/-. In this order the Dy. Commissioner had mentioned that the assessees were heard on 5.5.2000 at 3.30 PM. In making the order. Officer on 8.6.2000. In this report apparently the Range Officer stated that he was unable to determine whether the goods on which credit w...

Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of electrolytic cobalt and filed a bill of entry for its clearance for home consumption. After and payment assessed duty, the appellant discovered that the consignment was not available with the carrier of the goods. It therefore filed a claim for refund of the duty. The Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissed the claim on the ground that the matter had been handed over to Air India, the custodian of the goods, for investigation and for registration of a case with the police. However, there was no report of the result of the investigation, and he could not keep the claim pending indefinitely.Therefore, he rejected the claim.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The ground in the appeal is that the appellant has no control over Air India or the police authorities. Since the loss of consignment has been confirmed, the appellant is entitled to refund.3. The refund would be ...

Smita Janak Thacker Vs. Commissioner of Registrar, District Co-operati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR644; 2001(4)BomCR730; 2002(2)MhLj44

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The dispute in these proceedings arises in relation to the auction of residential property comprised of Flat No. 82-C, situated at Dadar Paschim Apartments, Dadar, Mumbai. In a dispute filed by the Fifth Respondent, which is a Co-operative Bank, against the borrower to whom the Bank had sanctioned a Bill Discounting Facility, the Co-operative Court by an award dated 28th June, 1995, decreed the claim of the Bank in the amount of Rs. 16,26,545/- as on 5th February, 1992 together with interest at the rate of 20% per annum. An execution certificate was thereafter issued by the Co-operative Court on 28th September, 1995, under Section 98 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ('the Act').2. The award was then sought to be executed under the authority of the Fourth Respondent, who is the Special Recovery Officer duly empowered under Section 156 of the Act and Rule 107 of the Rules framed thereunder. The Fourth Respondent has been duly empowered by an order...