Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Rotomould (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 96,551/- and penalty totalling Rs. 1,06,551/-.2. The duty has been demanded and penalties imposed on the finding of the authorities that applicant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 1/93 for the reason that it affixed on the water storage tanks that it manufactured and cleared the brand name "ROTRON" which did not belong to it.3. The contention of the counsel of the applicant is that it is only the invoice it issued that contained the brand name; the goods themselves did not bear this brand name. The copies of the invoice that he produced mention in the column "Identification Mark" the brand name "ROTRON". This would ordinarily lead to the belief that the goods bore on them their identification mark. If the statement in the invoices was misleading and the goods did not bear the brand name, it was up to the manufacturer to show that this was the case. We do not prima facie find any such attempt.Forest Industries Pv...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Garware Plastics and Polyester

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT753Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd., and respondent to this appeal manufactured X-ray films, cleared the scrap that arose in the manufacture of such films in terms of exemption of entry 19 to the table to notification 14/92. This entry exempts from payment of duty waste, parings and scraps of plastic classifiable under heading 39.15 of the Tariff subject to the condition that such waste, parings and scrap have arisen from goods on which excise duty or additional duty of Customs has been paid. Notice issued to it proposed on them not very clearly recovery of duty on two counts. So much modvat credit taken of the duty paid on the inputs as contained in the waste was sought to be recovered. the benefit of exemption contained in entry 19 of the table to the notification 14/92 was sought to be denied on the ground that these goods were not duty paid. The Additional Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal from that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) found for the manufac...

M/S Telecon Electric Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the stay application was called out, the applicants were not present. However the issue being well settled in law, the appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for.2. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 1,15,838/- under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On their filing an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed them to predeposit the amount of Rs. 75,000/- vide order dt. 26.12.2000. The order does not show that they were given an opportunity to be heard. The assessees filed reconsideration application praying financial hardships. On failure to predeposit, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal before him in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence the appeal.3. I find the plea of denial of natural justice as made by the appellants to be correct. The Commissioner was required to hear the assessees on the stay application and also on their application for reconsideration. The initial considerati...

M/S Asarwa Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The credit was denied to the appellants on two grounds. The first was that the supplier of goods, who had issued modvatable documents was not in possession of the duplicate copy of the invoice under which he had purchased the goods. The second ground was that although the description of goods in the invoices matched the description given in the declaration filed under Rule 57GG, the description was cryptic and did not make any meaning. The appellants say that as long as their own invoice was modvatable, they were not responsible for the lack of credit on part of the supplier. This statement is prima facie valid although whether in such situation the second buyer (like the appellants) would get the credit would have to be gone into. On the second ground I observe that if the Assistant Commissioner did not understand the meaning of the inputs declared in the declaration it was obligatory for him to ask the assessees for explanation at that time.At a much later date on this ground cre...

M/S Manik Business Machines Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There is a substantial delay in filing of the appeal No.C/715/2001-Mum. The claim of the appellant is that earlier he had filed Appeal No. C/1079/97-Mum which had disposed of two Orders-in-Original having the same facts. It is claimed that when the appeal came up for hearing on 30.5.2001, directions were made for finding of the supplementary appeal which he had followed. In these peculiar circumstances the delay is condoned.2. On the observation that the issue stands settled in the case of the same appellants on identical facts, both appeals are taken up for disposal vide this single order.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's findings that Paper Shredding Machines were consumer goods and were under negative list of imports as per para 156(a) of the ITC Policy 1992-97.In the case of the same appellants and the same goods, an earlier order passed by the Commissioner of Customs at around the same time had been covered by Tribunal's Order No. C-I/484/WZB/2001 dt. ...

Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides the appeal was admitted. The main appeal itself was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for.2. The appellants sent two chemicals namely Dichloro Aniline (DAC) and Parachloro Phenyl Isocynate (PCPI) to their job workers for production of intermediate goods. Following the procedure under Rule 57F(2) and 7 challns 13500 Kgs of goods were sent. The product received back weighed 13095 kgs. On the differential quantity duty was demanded. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the reversal of modvat credit of Rs. 24,024/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/-. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it was claimed that there was 3% process loss. The Commissioner observed that no formula had been placed before the department to show such loss in process. he removed the penalty sustaining the demand. Hence the present appeal.3. Shri R.J. Parakh Ld. Counsel refers to copy of letter dt. 13.11.2000 addressed to the Commissioner (Appeals) subsequent to t...

Embee Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1111Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat, whereunder the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,73,861/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and ordered payment of redemption fine on confiscation and also appropriated cash security of Rs. 2,25,000/- in terms of B-11 bond given by the appellant.2. The appellants are manufacturing man-made fabrics within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority namely Collectorate of Central Excise and Customs, Surat. The charge against the assessee was that they had obtained grey fabrics and after processing the same, they have given the finished goods to the persons who have given the grey fabrics. The main charge was that they have clandestinely removed the finished goods without appropriately accounting them in the statutory records. The officers raided the premises on 18.6.90 and on the same day the panchnama was drawn. In the panchnama, this inter alia sta...

Alok Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants were not present, but filed a representation claiming coverage of the following judgments.Bhagwandas Metals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2001 (44) RLT 68 (CEGAT-Che.)Commissioner of Central Excise v. Suzuki Processors 2001 (42) RLT 373 (CEGAT).2. Since the facts are identical, the stay application is granted. The predeposit of penalty of Rs.5000/- is waived and its recovery is stayed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Mahalaxmi Seamless Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is for condonation of delay of 17 days. The reason given is that there was "delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional Office/Range Office and as a result delayed the processing of the file".2. The appeal consist of a copy of the show cause notice, a copy of the Order-in-Original and a copy of the impugned order. The Commissioner's office and the office of the Assistant Commissioner are situated in the same premises. In identical circumstances (E/1177/01/Mum (Dept.) the Tribunal had dismissed from the same Commissioner. This application has no merits and is dismissed. Consequently the appeal also stand dismissed....

M/S Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal was admitted for further hearing and was taken up for final disposal on granting waiver as prayed for.2. Credit taken by the assessees on the basis of original copy of the invoice was denied. It was held that the assessees had failed to show that there was loss of duplicate copy of the invoice in transit. Before the Assistant Commissioner a number of judgments were produced to indicate that where there was no doubt about duty paid nature of the goods the assessees should not suffer due to a procedural lapse. The Commissioner observed that the facility was given of allowing credit to be taken on the original copy of the invoice but the assessees had not chosen to take that route. He decided against the assessees. Hence the present appeal.3. The same grounds as were raised before the Commissioner are pleaded before me. The subject rule made an exception provided the assessees undertook the simple task of proving that the duplicate copy of the invoice was lost in transit. T...