Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S York Prints Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The refund, pursuant to the Commissioner (Appeals)' order, has already been sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner by his order of 30.6.2000. Staying the operating of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order is pointless....

Morya Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No. C-II/36/WZB/2001 dated 3/1/2001 the appellant were directed to deposit the penalty amount within two months of the receipt of the order. This order was despatched on 15/02/2001. There is no evidence of any compliance on record. The intimations sent to the appellant at the address shown in the appeal memorandum has been received back undelivered.2. The appeal is therefore dismissed for failure to comply with the directions in the aforesaid order....

M/S Varka International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There is a delay of 10 days in filing this appeal. In spite of notice issued to it on 15.6.2001 pointing out this defect, the appellant has not filed an application for condoning the delay....

Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported three containers of goods declared to be acrylic thread waste. The department assessed the two bills of entry that the appellant filed for their clearance and accepted the duty that it consequently paid. when the goods were examined it was found that the presence of acrylic fibre in considerable quantity, said to be 30% of the total. Notice issued to the appellant proposed to recover the duty payable on the value of the acrylic fibre, which worked out to Rs. 3,86,570/-. The notice also proposed confiscation of the goods under clause (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act. The Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, demanding the duty and confiscating the goods.2. On appeal from this order, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority "to furnish the invoice and the bill of entry of the contemporaneous imports referred to in the show cause notice to the appellant and re-adjudicate the matter afresh after complying with the principle...

Sanghi Organisation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In a stay application on an identical issue of the same applicant for the earlier period, the Tribunal, in its order ordered deposit of around 60% of the duty. Accordingly we consider it appropriate for the applicant to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs out of the duty demanded of Rs. 2.85 lakhs and penalty totalling Rs. 1.53 lakhs.2. On compliance to be reported on 15^th October, 2001, deposit of remaining amount is waived and recovery stayed....

Gtc Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imp),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC728

1. The application is for deposit of Rs. 2.01 lakhs, demanded on the ground that the paper imported by the applicant, to be subjected to coating and printing before it is used in the manufacture of cigarettes, is classifiable under heading 48.05 of the Customs Tariff, denying the classification under heading 48.13.2. We find the classification on merits is open to debate. Counsel for the appellant states that, although the company is a sick industrial unit it will deposit Rs. 1 lakh, as evidence of bona fides.3. We appreciate this offer and accepted. On such deposit being made within a month from the receipt of this order, we waive deposit of the remaining amount, and say its recovery....

Commissioner of C. Excise, Vs. M/S Quality Cartons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We do not find any specific ground in the department application for staying operation of the Commissioner's order. On reading that order and the ground of appeal we do not find sufficient material to invoke the inherent power in order to stay the operation of the order....

The Shrigonda Ssk Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT194Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application, since the issue in law is well settled, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal, on granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 11,38,262/- as prayed for.2. The appellant manufacture denatured alcohol. They received molasses, an input, under cover of transport permits. Such permits are not modvatable documents, in terms of Rule 57G(3) of Central Excise Rules 1944. The jurisdictional Superintendent therefore wrote a letter dated 1/7/1998 to the appellant directing them to reverse the modvat credit and warned them that failure to reverse the credit would result in "necessary action under Central Excise Rules, 1944". Against this letter the appellant filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) entertained the appeal although the letter could not be termed to be either as a "order or a decision" as mentioned in Section 35A of the Act. He accepted that the assessee had voluntarily reversed the said amount. He further held the subject letter as wro...

Abhijyot Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of 93 diesel engines imported by the appellant, and therefore liability confiscation.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have heard the departmental representative and considered the submissions in the memorandum of appeal. These are that the invoice that the department has relied upon is for different goods, and that there is no reason why the transaction value should not be accepted.3. The department has relied upon invoices dated 9.9.1993 and 20.4.1993. The invoice of 9.9.1993 appears to be for parts of motor vehicles such as connecting rod, gear box and it is not clear how this is relied upon of evidence of value of engines. The other invoice is for goods described as diesel engine part of capacity of 1000 to 2200 CC. It is the contention of the appellant that these goods were different make of the manufacturer.4. We are unable to come to a firm conclusion on this issue, since the invoice in ...

Vishal Industries, S.H. Pawar, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These four applications relate to four appeals arising out of a common under. Since the issue is small the appeals are taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit in each case as prayed for.2. Heard Shri G.C. Biradar, advocate for the appellants and Shri B.B.Sarkar, DR for the Revenue and I am disposing of all the four appeals by this common order.3. M/s. Vishal Industries received cast lift arms. They sent these lift arms to Multi Coats, for certain operations and received the back such lift arms in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Multi Coats is a proprietary firm of Shri Gaitonde. Vishal Industries is a partnership firm. Shri Jadhav is the authorised signatory in Vishal Industries.4. On a surprise visit to the factory of Vishal Industries the officers found 1177 number of lift arms forgings short. 1580 pieces of lift arms were shown to have been sent to the job workers for processing on two dates namely. 13/06/...