Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Deccan Cans and Printers Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held as follows:- "The impugned order and the submissions have been considered by me carefully. The show cause notices alleges that the invoices were issued by unregistered dealers. As pointed out by the consultant the registration will not apply to first two invoices issued prior to 4.7.94. As regards other two invoices are concerned, since it contains the requisite particulars under Notification No. 15/94 they are regularisable. Moreover, the ground relied for denying the modvat credit have not been specified in the show cause notice. On this ground alone the impugned order is not maintainable. In the premises, the impugned order is set aside and I allow the appeal." 2. The department challenges the same. The department does not produce any evidence as to how the invoices issued were not in conformity with the Board's circular. In the absence of any evidence, I am unable to agree with the contentions raised in t...

Suchak Paper Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant request disposal on merits. I have heard Shri B.B.Sarkar for the Revenue.2. The appellants manufacture paper and claimed modvat credit on industrial felt. The Additional Collector disallowed the claim holding that it was a part of the paper making plant and not admissible under Rule 57A. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance but reduced the penalty imposed by the lower authority. Hence this appeal.3. The issue is no longer res integra. In the larger bench judgment of the Tribunal reported in 1996 (15) RLT 144 (Union Carbide (India) Limited Vs. Collector) it was held that parts of machinery, etc., did not fall in the exclusion clause to Rule 57A. The contested goods infact formed the point of dispute before the larger bench.4. Following the said judgment the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any....

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri George. Shri Modani appeared for the Respondent.2. The Respondent had taken modvat credit on measuring instruments and on wheel bearings. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand of Rs. 39,361.27 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the Respondent. The assessee then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Telco Vs. CCE 1994 (70) ELT 79 accepted the claim with regard to measuring instruments. As regards the wheel bearings he observed that although the declarations were filed late they were filed within the extended period where condonation could be given by the Assistant Commissioner. He held that the mere fact that the application for condonation was filed late was not a ground for the late declaration not being accepted. On his allowing the appeal of the assessee, the present appeal has been filed.3. As regards the action of the Commissione...

Panama Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1239Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, prescribes the documents on the strength of which credit can be availed of. The Central Government is empowered to issue notifications prescribing such documents. The Notification No. 15/94 (NT) date 30/03/1994 prescribed an invoice issued by an importer from his godown as a modvatable document. This notification was superseded by Notification No.32/94(NT) dated 04/07/1994 where in addition to the invoice issued by the importer an invoice issued by the dealer of the imported goods was also made modvatable document. The present appellant during the period April, 1994 to November, 1994 claimed credit on the basis of invoice issued by the consignment agents of the importers. This was disallowed by the Assistant Collector and this disallowance was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that in terms of Notification No.1594 such invoices would not qualify. Hence this appeal.2. Shri Gwalani refers to the following extract of Chandig...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Lumens (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The learned DR arguing for the appeal states that in this case the assessee has taken the modvat credit in respect of inputs on endorsed GP1 which was endorsed on 30.6.1994. The GP1 endorsed on 31.3.1994 is not a proper document for availing modvat credit. The amount involved is Rs.50,000/-. In of Moosa Haji Patrawala 1996 (64) ECR 125 we have held that in such type of transaction the modvat credit is entitled to be given. The case law is against the departmetn as also the amount. In view of the discretion vested in me under second proviso to section 35B of the Central Excise Act, I dismiss the appeal. On merits also the department does not have a case....

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. M/S Krupp Industries (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT899Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessee respondents used computer software as aid to designing of their finished products. On receipt of an order from their customers they made detailed drawings and designs on the computer. The designs were then transcribed and converted into finished goods. Modvat credit taken on the computer was disallowed by the Additional Commissioner who at the same time imposed a penalty on the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that computers would not fall under the exclusion clause to Rule 57A inasmuch as they did not physically process any goods. In holding so he relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Telco Vs. CCE 1994 (70) ELT 79. On his allowing the appeal of the assessee the Revenue have filed the present appeals.2. The claim made in the appeal memorandum is that the cited judgment had not been accepted by the department and that an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court. As to a specific query the learned Departmental Representative informed the bench ...

Tme Plasmettronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT242Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On 29.3.94, the appellant informed the Jurisdictional Additional Collector that it proposed to avail of the credit under Rule 57T of the duty paid on three plastic injection moulding machine which it received earlier that month. it took credit of the duty paid on these machines in August 1994. Notice was issued to it proposing to deny the modvat credit on t he ground that the appellant was availing of the exemption under notification 1/93 and was clearing the goods without payment of duty in accordance with the terms of the notification which permits such clearance up to the aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs. Adjudicating upon the notice, the Additional Collector ( whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals) has held that credit was not available, disallowed it and imposed penalty on the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant is simple. It is that Sub-rule(2) of Rule 57R, which prescribes that credit of duty paid on capit...

M/S Visen Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In spite of notice, none has appeared. The question involved in this appeal is about the limitation provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act for the refund. Refund application has been filed after the lapse of six months that is the finding given by teh appellate authority. The appellate authority, in my opinion, has not committed any error as he has found that in respect of claim of Rs. 32,149/- the application has been filed after the lapse of six months.Thereofre I do not find there is any justification to interfer with teh impugned order. The appeal is also less than Rs. 50,000/-. I do not think it may be a matter of recurring nature. Hence the appeal stands dismised in terms of second proviso to section 35B of the Central Excise Act....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Polychem Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) has concluded that the respondent to this appeal had lost the duplicate copies of the invoice issued by the manufacturer for the inputs that it received and permitted it to take credit on the duplicate copies.2. The grounds in the appeal of the department challenging this order, that the Commissioner has not verified whether inputs were received or utilised in the factory of the respondent, is clearly an attempt to break fresh grounds. The show cause notice proposed to deny the credit only on the ground that it was taken on invalid documents. That is what the Asst. Commissioner has said. This ground cannot be permitted.However, the other ground is that Rule 57G(2) permits credit to be availed on the basis of the original invoice where the duplicate was lost subject to the satisfaction of the Asst. Collector. Both sides agree that the trade notice which has been issued (to give effect to Rule 57G(2)) specifies condition...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Pharmasynth Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is about the penalty imposed on the assessee for taking modvat credit on the endorsed bill of entry.This matter has already been subject to several decisions of the Tribunal as reflected in page of Order-in-Appeal. I do not think I can deviate from the above orders. Hence the appeal of the department is without merit and is dismissed....