Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of machine tools and parts thereof. They were filing classification list from time to time describing their goods as machine tools and parts and accessories thereof claiming classification under heading 84.66. Classification list right up to March 1987 were approved by the department. However classification list No. 8/87 dt. 27.8.87 is the subject matter of the present appeal where the charge against the assessees is that classification of the items is not under Chapter 84.66, but certain items such as Gear, Driver, Clutch etc. for fall classification under Heading 84.83. The extended period of limitation has been invoked against the appellants while confirming the present demand of Rs. 74,879.68 together with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The appellants state at the outset that they are challenging the demand and imposition of penalty only on time bar aspect. In this connection they state that earlier classification list showing the same descr...

Shri Yakup I. Yusuf Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts are that the applicant herein filed an appeal against the order of confiscation passed by the Commissioner of Customs of confiscation of 25 kgs. of gold and imposed penalty upon him under Section 112 of the Customs Act, Foreign currency was also seized from the applicant and confiscated by the adjudicating authority. In appeals before the Tribunal the Bench passed Final Order No.C-I/4019-24/WZB/2000 dt. 9.11.2000 by which confiscation of gold with permission to redeem for re-export on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs was ordered penalty on the applicant herein was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs, confiscation of foreign currency brought by the applicant was set aside. Since the Tribunal's order was not implemented the applicant has now filed an application under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, praying for release of the currency and the gold. Ld. DR brings to our notice that the gold has already been disposed of after its confiscation and sale proceeds of the gold are...

M/S Vyankatesh Patra Udyog Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT135Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive the predeposit of Rs. 4.5 lakhs directed to be paid as differential duty on finalisation of provisional assessment and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself after hearing the Ld.DR.2. The final assessment order dt. 10^th May 2000 was passed by the Commissioner for finalisation of provisional assessment by the period 1998-99 of the appellants herein who are manufacturers of Galvanised Corrugated Sheets of various gauges. The assessee, during the period 1997-98 was working under the SSI exemption under Notification No.38/97 dt. 27.6.97 and intend to avail of the benefit of Notification No. 9/98 dt. 2.6.98 for 1998-99. However, value of clearances for 1997-98 in addition to clandestine removal of goods involving duty of about Rs. 25 lakhs increased the total value of clearances to a figure beyond Rs. 3 crores, and therefore it was held that the benefit of Notification No. 9/98 was not available and that differential duty was required to be paid by...

M/S. Shyam Traders and Others Vs. Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Case records are required to be called for in order to see the previous test reports of the goods in question. Copies of test report referred to in the impugned order are also required. Ld. DR to call for and obtain these records to be placed before the Bench on the next date of hearing, copy of the order to be issued in advance. Matter to come up on 19.9.2001. Copy to both sides.2. Copy of this order also issued to concerned Commissioner for compliance....

Ccex, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Topland Export and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The only ground furnished in the application for stay of operation of the Commissioner's order is that an appeal on identical ground is pending with the Tribunal. This is no ground. The Stay application are accordingly dismissed. On our perception that the issue before us can be decided quickly and simply applying the relevant law, we list the appeal for hearing on 26.9.2001. Notice to the respondents....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. National Tubes

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. National Tubes, the respondent to this appeal is a manufacturer on job work of tubes and pipes of copper and copper alloys. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in determining the cost of manufacture of these tubes and pipes for the purposes of assessment, it was entitled to exclude the modvat credit of the duty paid by their manufacturer on the ingots, which were supplied to it for manufacture of these goods. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Dai lchi Karkaria vs. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 676, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the contention of the manufacturer that this element need not be included.2. The department's appeal against this order contends that the Tribunal's decision was concerned with the valuation of captively consumed goods and its ratio will therefore not apply to job work. This is not correct. Paragraph 20 of the Tribunal's order says, "We therefore hold that duty paid on inputs in regard to which Modvat credit was availed of b...

M/S Paris Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT832Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were not present. However the issue being small, the appeal was taken up for disposal after hearing Shri A.K. Jain Ld. DR.2. Short levy of Rs. 53,238.46 was adjusted against the present appellants on account of certain clearances made by them during the period 1989-90. The appellants deposited this duty by a debit in their RG 23A Part II Account on 26.7.92. The Concerned officer felt that the short levy should have been made good by a cash deposit and the debit from the modvat account was not permissible on the ground that this credit was not available with the assessee at the time when the short levy had occurred. On this ground show cause notice was issued.Directions were made by the original authority for payment in cash of this amount. Facility was given to the assessee to re-credit the modvat debited towards this payment. This order having been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.3. In terms of Rule 57A the credit of specified...

H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the benefit of notification 118/75 of the refractory materials manufactured by the appellant in its factory at Taloja and not found to have been used in that factory. The notification exempts from for whole of the duty goods falling under item 68 of the Tariff, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory of manufacture or any other factory of the same manufacturer. It provides that where the goods are used in a factory of the Collector of Central Excise in which he has stated that the benefit of the notification would be available to the refractories used at Dewas and Thane. However that was not the issue before the Collector. The notice upon which he was adjudicating proposed penalty on the manufacturer for removing goods from the Taloja factory for manufacturing goods without a licence and not maintaining the prescribed records. The notice did not call upon the appellant to pay duty. The observa...

M/S. Benzo Chem Inds. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waived the predeposit of Rs.30,26,741/- confirmed against the appellants on clearances of various chemicals falling under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29 and penalty of amount equal to duty, and proceeded to dispose of appeals themselves with the consent of both sides. In addition to the penalty upon the manufacturing units penalties of Rs.35,000/- each have been imposed on three directors and one employee. The period of dispute is February 1996 to February 1998.2. The appellants herein used to send the Semi-finished goods to their sister concerned M/s. Gitanjali Chemicals for further processing who returned the same after processing for use in the manufacture of final products to be cleared on payment of duty. While doing so, during the period of dispute they did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 57F(2) [later Rule 57F(3)] of the Central Excise Rules for movement of goods in such circumstances. It is the contention of the appellants that they ha...

M/S. Kolhapur Zilha Shetkari Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufacture cotton yarn both single and doubled yarn.Show cause notices were issued to them for demanding the differential duty on the single yarn rendered waste during the manufacture of doubled yarn. The demand was confirmed and the appeal against the demand confirm was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) hence this appeal. None appears for the appellants when the case is called inspite of notice; hence we heard Ld. DR and perused the records the effect of the notice is to levy duty on single yarn, which should have suffered duty. The question of liability to duty of yarn at single stage has been settled by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, [1996 (82) ELT 442(S.C.)] and it is this decision which has been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order. Since the issue stands by the decision of the Apex Court we hold that duty liability was to be discharged at the single yarn,...