Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

M/S Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellants and are taken up together for disposal.2. The appellants requested for adjournment. However, the since the issue stands settled, the appeals are being disposed of vide this single order.3. The issue involves denial of benefit under provisions of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on the following products: 4. Over the period, the Tribunal have had the opportunity to examine the eligibility of these items. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex. vs. modi Rubber Ltd. [2000(119) E.L.T. 197] has held lubricating oils and greases used of the purpose of lubricating the machinery as admissible inputs. The refractory material such as was used by the present appellant was found to be admissible in the Tribunal's order in the case of CCE vs. Chettinad Cement Corporation ltd. [2001(130) E.L.T.762. Wires and cables were found as admissible inputs in the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Jawahar Mi...

M/S Ceat Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the stay application was argued by Shri Shroff, advocate it was argued that the issue of classification of the disputed goods stood settled by the Tribunal judgement in the appellant's own case reported in 1999 (111) ELT 383. Since the revenue involved is Rs. 2.63 crores since the issue is arguably settled in favour of the assessee we post this case for final adjudication on 19^th September, 2001. In the meanwhile the Revenue shall not take any action to recover the dues confirmed in the impugned order....

Kumar Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No. C1/1396 to 1397/WZB/2001 dated 14.5.01 Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and P.D.Patel Rs. 20,000/- as pre-condition to hearing of their appeals. An application for modification E/MA(Modfn)646/2001-MUM was filed on 6.8.2001. However, Shri Vishal Agarwal, C.A. places on record photo copies of documents evidencing pre-deposit as directed and seeks withdrawal of the Modfn. application. Application is permitted to be withdrawn. Compliance is taken on record....

M/S Panse Autocomps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case took modvat credit on the strength of gate pass dated 29.3.94 but which was endorsed after 1.4.94 and the credit was taken on 29.6.94. Show cause notice dated 11.11.94 was issued seeking reversal of this credit. The Asstt. Collector directed credit of Rs. 11863 to be reversed. The assessee then filed an appeal.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order holding that the gate pass was not valid in terms of Notification No. 16/94 (NT) dated 30.3.94.Against this order, this appeal has been filed. Reliance has been placed on the Tribunal judgment reported in 1996(83) E.L.T.620 (Mossa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd.) in which it was held that in such situation, the credit taken was valid. This judgment has been followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases. Reference applications filed in a number of cases on the question of law arising therefrom have been granted and references have been made to the jurisdictional High Courts. In fact, in a number of cases where th...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the benefit of notification 296/92 and 297/92 both issued on 18.11.1992 would be available to the goods imported by the respondent, deposited in a private bonded warehouse on 14.7.1992 and removed from it in February, 1993.2. In his order impugned before us, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that, by application of the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, it is the rate of duty prevailing on the date of removal from the bonded warehouse will apply and concluded that the benefit of notification 296/92 (granting exemption from basic, auxiliary duty of Customs) would apply.3. The ground in the appeal is that application of notification amounts to revaluing the goods under Section 14 of the Act. The value of warehouse goods is determined on their arrival and there is no provision to revalue them when they are cleared from the bonded warehouse.4. Both the notifications are issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the...

G. Claridge and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT391Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of egg trays made of paper pulp. It sells these goods either from its factory at Pune or from its five sales depots located at Mumbai, Hyderabad, Gudiwada, Erode and Coimbatore. At the relevant time, it sold egg trays from the factory at Rs. 105.02 and Rs. 103.91 for different periods and at Rs. 91 and Rs. 90.52 all being for 140 pieces from its four depots, excluding the one at Mumbai. It is stated that the appellant sold the goods from this depot at the same price as it sold them from the factory. Notice issued to the appellant proposed to apply to the sales from these four depots the price at which it sold them from the factory. The Asstt. Collector [whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)] confirmed the proposal in the notice. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant is that these four depots were set up to cater to the demand in the four southern States. The appellant had necessarily to sell...

Biva Enterprises and G.B. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT691Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant absent despite notice. We have hard the departmental representative.2. The issues involved in these appeals are common. These are, whether the drawer locks and goods described as aluminium diamond level imported by Biva Enterprises and drawer locks and door closing machines imported by G.B. Enterprises, required an import licence, they being consumer goods, and whether the value declared by the importer was acceptable.3. The goods were of various manufacturers and shipped from a supplier at Dubai. The department found the value declared by each of the importers to be too low, and in the absence of import of identical or similar goods, proceeded to determine the value, by reducing it from the retail price of the goods by applying Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules.4. It was not the department's case that any of the exemptions contained in the proviso under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules applied to the goods under consideration. The only reason advanced in both th...

Suraj Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In its stay application as well as letter dated 24.7.2001, the applicant states that no demand for duty is pending against it and stay application is unnecessary....

Ravi Steel Industries and D.G. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT424Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Ravi Steel Industries, is a processor of textile fabrics. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has found that it did not pay appropriate duty on some fabrics that it processed, for the reason that the job charges recovered from the customers were higher than the charges that it declared to the department and included in their assessable value. The Commissioner has also found that the appellant ought to have paid duty on another consignment of fabric that is processed under Heading 5801.32 and not under Heading 5406.10 of the tariff which was applicable to the man made fabrics.3. We are not able to accept the first submission of the representative of the appellant with regard to the first allegation of non inclusion of the correct job charges. This is that although the bills issued to the person who supplied the gray fabrics indicated a particular amount as the job charges (which is what the department has considered) in reality, the charges that were reco...

M/S Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant had taken credit on the original copy of the invoice.The reason why the credit was so taken was not explained to the Asst.Commissioner. This is so recorded in his order. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the claim made was that the duty has been paid and the invoice could bear this claim. The Commissioner referred to the Asstt.Commissioner's observation. He held that the language of the rule was mandatory. In holding so he relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Premier Induction (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector [1996 (12) RLT 22 (T).On his upholding the lower order, the present appeal has been filed.2. Shri Jagtap reiterates the contentions made in the appeal memorandum which were the same as were made before the Commissioner.3. An identical issue was decided by the Tribunal in appeal No.E/1353/2001-Mum in the case of M/s. Godrej Sopas Ltd. (Order No.CI/2570-71/WZB/2001 dated 24.8.01). In that case the Tribunal had observed as under:- "The same grounds as were raised ...