Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

M.P. T.V. Corporation and Palesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The letter of the representative of the appellants indicates that they have settled the issue under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and encloses evidence in the form of a certificate from the designated authority....

Marda Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1256Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal taken up with the consent of the departmental representative after waiving deposit. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is liability for conclusion in calculating the capacity of the chambers and stenter in the appellant's factory, the galleries which were part of the stenter.While the Commissioner held the rail length of the gallery to be includible relying upon the decision of the tribunal in CM Paints (P) Ltd vs 2000 (120) ELT 829, the law laid down by the Tribunal is no longer good law having been overruled by the larger bench in its decision in Sangam Processor Bhilwara Ltd vs CCE 2001 (127) ELT 679.The rail length of the gallery is therefore was not to be included....

Voltas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC348Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing the assessees on the stay applications, we find that the issue has been settled vide Tribunal's Order No. CI/2224/WZB/2001 dated 31/7/01 in respect of the same appellants. We, therefore, take up these two appeals for final disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.2. The appellants manufactured Refrigerators. With effect from 28.2.94 duty on Refrigerators was changed from specific rated to advolorem. No sales were effected at the factory gate. Sales were effected from 26 depots situated all over the country. The appellants filed price lists.They had certain difficulty in giving certain figures and therefore they requested that assessments be kept provisional. They filed a provisional assessment bond and submitted details of agreements with 3 classes of buyers viz. Whole Sale Dealers, Sale and Service Dealers; and Only Sales Dealers. Subsequently, from time to time price declarations were filed. The prices at which the refrigerators were sold to these 3 var...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents granted different discounts to their dealers placed in different regions. The Asstt. Commissioner denied such grant placing reliance on order No. 24/14/93 dt 31.12.93 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this order placing reliance on certain judgments of the Tribunal holding that the concerned provisions did not require uniformity in traders discount.This order is agitated in this appeal from the Revenue placing reliance once again upon the circular of the Board. Other circulars are also cited holding that wholesale dealers could not be considered as buyers in different classes merely because they are located in different regions.2. This issue has been settled long back. The circular on which the Asstt. Commissioner had placed reliance was quashed by the Delhi High Court in their judgment in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. [1994 (73) ELT 25.] The practice of granting different discount to buyers sit...

Sharp Leathers Ltd. and Super Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty from the appellant and imposing a penalty on it on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 was not available to the goods imported by them, for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of the exported product.3. The representative of the appellant contends that the appellant had not taken any credit of the duty paid in the manufacture of exported product. He contends that no hearing was granted to the appellant by the Commissioner. Without going into the merits, we note that the show cause notice does not disclose any material based on which it is alleged that modvat credit was taken. We are of the view that the claim made before us to be considered by the Commissioner.4. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall consider the evidence that ...

M/S A.P. Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1055Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were engaged in recording blank cassettes from master tapes and other materials supplied by the principal manufacturer.Demand of Rs. 2,49,294/- was confirmed on the ground that the value of the material given by the principal manufacturer was not added when computing the assessable value. The assessee during the proceedings had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,12,078/- towards duty. Apart from confirming this duty, the Commissioner also imposed a penalty of equal amount of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the order in toto, the appeal and the present application has been filed.2. Shri Nankani, Counsel for the applicants submits that master tape is capable of using repeatedly and is capable of being reproduced into a large number of cassettes. The entire basis for addition of value of such master tape etc. was wrong since it was calculated on the basis of the sale price of the cassettes by the principal manufacturer. Even otherwise, the counsel stated, that the ...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 25,27,66,838.70, and a penalty and interest on RS 12,08,23,981.70 for the period from 1.10.1996 to 31.1.199 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.2. The case of the department is that the appellant who is supplying crude oil to various refineries had to follow the provisions of Oil Industry ((Development)Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) and to pay cess in terms of section 15 (1) of the Act on the quantity received at the various refineries. It is emphasised there that various refineries owned by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd received the crude at the point where the crude enters the pipeline from Central Tank Form (CTF) of the appellants. Therefore, it is the case of the department that the effective transfer of the custody of the crude from the appellants to the respective refinery takes place a that point of the quantity of the cru...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Blast Carboblocks

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The department's appeal questions the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the benefit of Rule 57H could not be extended to the inputs brought in by the respondent, for the reason that they were not available for verification and had already been utilised in the manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty.2. The ground in the appeal is that at the relevant time Rule 57H did not permit credit to be taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. It is contended that this clause was omitted by notification 20/89 dated 5.5.1989.3. While the departmental representative repeats this argument, it is difficult to comprehend Rule 57H, even as it stood later, provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57G, the Assistant Collector may allow credit of the duty paid on inputs received by the manufacturer immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration under that rule if he is satisfied that they were lyi...

Saurashtra Ship Breaking Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty of Rs.2,27,882/- has been demanded on the ground that the applicant could not take modvat credit of the duty paid on fuel, oil and bunker stores which were on board ship that it received for breaking it.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The issue however has been decided by the Tribunal in CC,Rajkot vs Saibaba Shipping Corporation, an unreported order deciding appeal E/357-392/01.In that decision, the Tribunal has held that credit of the duty paid on such stores (other than fuel and lubricating oil contained in the ship's engines and machinery in the ) would not be available.3. Accordingly, we direct deposit by the assessee of Rs. 2.00 lakhs within two months from to-day upon which we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and stay its recovery....

Prakash Alias Pakya Ramchandra Bobde Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)16

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this Criminal Writ Petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Prakash alias Pakya Ramchandra Bobde, has impugned the order dated 10.1.2001, passed by the first respondent, Shri M.N. Singh. Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), hereinafter referred to as the 'M.P.D.A, Act'.The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 10.1.2001, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 18.1.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'C' respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 'C') would show that the impugned detention order is based on one C. R., namely, C.R. No. 100/ 2000, under sections 376(2)(G), 506(11) and 34 of the Indian Penal ...