Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner's application for stay of operation of the impugned order does not contain any grounds. The annexure which is stated to contain the grounds is missing. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal's decision in Moosa Haji Patrawala vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 620. I therefore decline to stay operation of the order.2. In the light of the fact that the issue appears to be covered, appeal to be listed on 2.11.01....

Jyoti Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In its stay order passed on 19.3.2001, the Tribunal had passed orders staying recovery of the disputed amount for a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. It had asked both sides to secure "illustrative audit objection." Neither side had produced any such report of audit objection. We note that the Tribunal in its order had said that, in the absence of the original audit objection, it was unable to understand the ground which led to the audit objection. The demand is based on this audit objection.2. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the interim stay order should be made absolute. We therefore waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery....

Mohammed A. Ahmed Vs. Comm. Customs, Airport,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applicant is absent and unrepresented. There is no evidence of compliance with the stay order....

Flexoplast Abrasives (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The mistake pointed out in the application is that, despite this not being asked for, the Tribunal is its order of remand, has asked the Commissioner(Appeals) to consider and determine the interest on delayed payment. The contention that this was not a ground in the appeal has to be accepted.2. Accordingly, we modify our order follows; In paragraph 7 of the order, the last five words " and interest on delayed payment" may be deleted....

Sharp Leathers Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC746

1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty from the appellant and imposing a penalty on it on the ground that the benefit of Notification 203/92 was not available to the goods imported by them, for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of the exported product.3. The representative of the appellant contends that the appellant had not taken any credit of the duty paid in the manufacture of exported product. He contends that no hearing was granted to the appellant by the Commissioner. Without going into the merits, we note that the show cause notice does not disclose any material based on which it is alleged that modvat credit was taken. We are of the view that the claim made before us to be considered by the Commissioner.4. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall consider the evidence that ...

Microchip Computers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of the duty demanded of Rs. 1,81,224/-, applicant has already deposited Rs. 1,68,000/-.2. Having regard to this, I waive deposit of the remaining duty and penalty imposed on the manufacturer....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narayan Processors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Narayan Processors were engaged in processing of man made fabrics. In an adjudication order passed by the Dy.Collector duty was confirmed against them. Man made fabrics were confiscated but were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine and penalties were imposed upon the processors. The Collector (Appeals) while upholding the confirmation of duty set aside the order of confiscation and penalties relying upon the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Pioneer Silk Mills and subsequent judgments of the Tribunal following that judgment.2. In this appeal, the Revenue questioned the reliance so placed on the Delhi High Court's judgment, on citing the case of M/s. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. 3. In a number of cases the Revenue had attempted to show that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court differs from the Delhi High Court judgment. On this ground, an application was made for reference on the question of law to the Supreme court in terms of Sec. 35H of the Central Excise Act, 19...

Ambaji Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of the amounts mentioned against each :-Name Duty Penalty Redemption FineAmbaji Syntex Pvt. Rs. 1.79 crores Rs. 1.79 crores Rs. 20,000/- Ltd., Karanj approx approxAmbaji Syntex Pvt. Rs. 1.50 crores Rs. 1.50 crores Rs. 20,000/- Ltd., PipodaraMahesh Texturisers Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 20,000/-Somani International Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 20,000/-Shankarlal Rs. 50,000/-Maheshbhai Rs. 50,000/- 2. We have heard the Counsel for the applicants and the departmental representative.3. Mahesh Texturisers Ltd. and Somani International texture partially oriented yarn which they receive from the manufacturer. Duty has been demanded from them on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 1/93, for the reason that they affixed the customers brand names on the bobbins on which the yarn was wound. The Counsel for the applicant says that prima facie the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Khanna Industries v. CCE -...

Gansons 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 liability for inclusion in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant of the notional interest (that is to say, interest is not actually paid) on the advances that the appellant received from the buyers of these goods towards their price.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the liability to the inclusion.VST Industries Ltd. v. CCE 1998 (97) ELT 395) that in the absence of anything to show that the fact that the advances has the effect of reducing the value of the goods sold to the buyers who paid the advances, interest nominally payable on the advances is not includible in the value for the proposes of assessment. The reasons advanced in the impugned order that, but for the advances, the manufacturer would have compelled to resort to commercial borrowing is insufficient to establish the required nexus....

Chakan Overseas Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT810Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are not present in spite of notice. On the earlier occasions also, they have remained absent. Therefore, their appeal is taken up for disposal on perusal of the submissions made in the appeal memorandum and on hearing Shri Sarkar for the Revenue.2. The appellants entered for export of 900 bags each of 20 kgs, bearing description "instant food (pakoda powder)." The sample of the goods was examined by the Dy. Chief Chemist who remarked that the goods were gram flour. Such flour required a specific licence for export being included in the negative list of the Exim Policy 1992-93 AM, Chapter XVI, Part II, para 159, Sr.No. 16. The Dy. Collector confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. One lakh in addition imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the exporters. Since the goods were perishable, the present appellants effected the release and then filed an appeal. Before the Collector (Appeals), they claimed that in terms of a certificate ...