Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Mayur Colours Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC55Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Under the modvat scheme the credit of duty paid on the inputs can be availed and utilised towards the payment of duty on the final products.Where the final products are exempted the credit is not allowed. It may happen that some inputs may be used in the manufacture of final products some of which are dutiable and the others are not dutiable. In that situation Rule 57C requires that the inadmissible portion of the credit should be written back. Some manufactures find it difficult to maintain elaborate accounts of duty paid inputs used in these two streams. Rule 57CC was latter introduced requiring a manufacturer to pay duty @ 8% on exempted products as an alternative to writing back of inadmissible credit in terms of Rule 57C. Rule 57CC does not do away with the provisions of Rule 57C. Where the manufacturer can keep the necessary accounts Rule 57C would apply. This exemption is embodied under sub-rule (1) as also in sub-rule (9) of Rule 57CC. Sub-Rule (1) and (9) requires to be re...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Moontex Dyeing and Printing Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri B.B. Sarkar for the Revenue the appeal was taken up for final disposal.2. The respondents were not present but have filed a memorandum of Cross-Objection. The issue involves seizure of manmade fabrics on 03/07/1993 which were not recorded in the statutory register. The Assistant Commissioner confiscated the goods, permitted their redemption on payment of fine, confirmed the duty and imposed penalty.The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of imposition of penalty and of confiscation relying upon the Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1995 (80) ELT 3. The claim made in the appeal memorandum is based on the Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. 1992 (58) ELT 9 which also relates to Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. Reference has also been made to certain judgement of the Tribunal. In effect an attempt has been made to show that the ratio of the D...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. M/S Kalpana Silk Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondents are not present inspite of notice. On hearing Shri B.B.Sarkar, I find that the law being well settled the appeal could be taken up for final disposal.2. The respondents M/s. Kalpana Silk Mills are traders/ Certain man made fabrics were get processed from M/s. Luthra Dyeing. & Printing Mills. Some of such goods received by M/s. Kalpana Silk Mills were admittedly cleared without payment of duty by the job worker. These goods were seized. They Dy. Commissioner confiscated the offending goods but permitted their redemption on payment of fine. He noted that pending adjudication the offending goods had been released in terms of a bond by M/s. Kalpana Silk Mills, given cash security as well having paid the duty leviable. He adjusted the fine and also adjusted the deposit of Rs 1,49,396/- made towards the duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read wit provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He imposed penalties on the job workers and on t...

Sarita Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal was filed on 08/05/2001. Directions were made to supply legible copies of the order-in-original. On the applicant remaining absent in the hearing the Tribunal directed by virtue of order No.C-I/1595/2001-WZB dated 1/6/2001 to produce the copy with the caution that if the copies are not submitted the appeal would be dismissed. The applicants were also directed to file certain affidavits. This order was despatched on 08/06/2001. the order itself showed date of next hearing as 17/08/2001 i.e., today.2. Today when the application was called out the applicants were not present. There is no submission in compliance of the Tribunal's directions. In that situation the appeal is defective and in terms of Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 liable for dismissal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed and also the stay application....

Simplex Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1026Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On 9.8.2001, counsel for the appellant asked for a week's time to comply with the Tribunal's stay order. The matter was accordingly adjourned to today.2. Counsel tells us now that the applicant needs another six weeks to furnish the bank guarantee. The Tribunal's stay order requiring the bank guarantee was passed in October, 1995. An application for modification of this order was rejected by the order passed in 1996, but a period of two months from that day was provided for furnishing the bank guarantee.3. The counsel for the applicant is not able to explain why, despite the passage of five years, the applicant has not filed bank guarantee.If the applicant did not find it possible to file the bank guarantee within five years, it is not possible to believe that it would furnish the bank guarantee within six weeks; no reason in any case has been advanced that would make us believe that the guarantee will be filed in six months. considering this, as also the fact that the counsel unde...

The Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC795

1. This appeal involves interpretation of Rule 57R(I) which reads thus:-- (1) Credit of the specified duty paid on the capital goods (other than those cleared either to a unit in free trade zone or to a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking or to a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park) or to a unit in Software Technology Parks) shall not be allowed if such capital goods are used exclusively for production of a final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon (other than a final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year) or is chargeable to nil rate of duty: Provided that the credit shall also not be allowed in respect of the components, spare and accessories of such capital goods which are used for the aforesaid purposes.2. The appellant manufactured plastic crates. It used an i...

Hercules Hoists Ltd. Vs. Cce and C

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(100)LC557Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Hercules Hoists Ltd. sold some of the hoists manufactured by it to Batliboi & Co. Ltd. In terms of the agreement between these parties, Batliboi & Co. Ltd. was to incur half of the expenses that the manufacturer spent in advertising the goods. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether that part of the expenses incurred by Batliboi & Co. Ltd. is to be included in the assessable value of the hoists. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector that these charges are to be included.Philips India Ltd. v. CCE is that the expenses incurred by a dealer of excisable goods benefited both him and the manufacturer equally and should not form part of the assessable value of those goods. The ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside, with consequential relief....

B.G. Shirke and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC730

1. The appellants manufactured and supplied certain materials for building construction. Show cause notice dated 27-9-88 alleged that construction of materials such as building blocks etc. as well as windows and ventilators made by the appellants were "goods" in terms of the Central Excise law. It was alleged that they manufactured and cleared the goods without payment of duty. It was further alleged that in doing so, they had not obtained licence nor had they maintained statutory registers. Demand for duty was made amounting to Rs. 2,95,211.85 for the articles of cement manufactured during the period 1-4-85 to 27-2-86 ; duty amounting to Rs. 4,39,580.55 was demanded on windows and ventilators manufactured during the period 1-4-86 to 5-5-88. Show cause notice invoked the extended period claiming suppression etc. with intent to evade duty. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner passed orders confirming the duties as shown above, imposing penalty of Rs. One lakh and ordering confi...

Godavari Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, whereunder he has confirmed the show cause notice by demanding duty of Rs. 39,17,983/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 39,17,983/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Show cause notice dated 6-1-1998 has been issued against the assessee who was manufacturing M.S. Round Bars, on the following grounds :- 2. It is contended before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the production which has been assumed by the adjudicating authority at a very high level namely nearly 200% not in a legal and proper manner. Learned Counsel further states that the reliance has been placed on the hand-books prepared by the workers by the adjudicating authority in passing the impugned order which is deprecated by the Tribunal in decisions rendered in certain cases. The learned Counsel further submits that the approach of the adjudicating authority in decidi...

Shabana Steels Pvt. Ltd., Afzali Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay order earlier passed by the Tribunal having been set aside by the order of the High Court. We have heard the parties.2. Two sets of orders were passed in adjudication on an identical issue, whether modvat credit could be availed of by persons on the basis of documents endorsed by dealers of scrap. The notices alleged that the material which was received was not covered by gate passes showing payment of duty. The Deputy Commissioner who adjudicated some of the notices in which the duty was less then Rs. 10 lakhs, confirmed the demand. On appeal from these orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) found for the appellant on limitation and set aside the Deputy Commissioner's orders. The Tribunal declined to consider the prayer made by the department for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order.3. Another set of notices, where the duty involved exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, was adjudicated by the Commissioner, who found that the department had a case on merits as well as on li...