Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The refund claim of Rs. 2,22,675.88 was filed by the appellants on 12.7.82 on the ground that certain duty had been paid by them by mistake of law on post manufacturing expenses during the period 1.7.1982 to 30.12.1981. Substantial correspondence were made thereafter. On 29.6.88, the appellants scaled down the quantum to Rs. 61,551/- in response to the department's letter dated 30.6.87 pointing out the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. On 18.7.1989, as against the claim of Rs. 61,551/-, the Asstt. Collector sanctioned refund of Rs. 57,008/-. A corrigendum was issued on 10.8.1989 reducing the refund to Rs. 52,762.36. This was not contested by the assessee. They took credit in their PLA account of this sum on 1.9.89. However, the jurisdictional Commissioner caused an appeal to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the refund claim was filed after the statutory period and theref...

M/S Shree Vishnua Dyg. and Ptg. Mills Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals have the same facts and arise out of the common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat. In spite of notice, the appellants are, not present. On the earlier occasions also the appellants were neither present nor were represented. These appeals are therefore, disposed of after taking into account the contentions made in the appeal memorandum and those advanced by Shri Sarkar, DR Sarkar, DR for the Revenue.2. Shree Vishnu Dyg. & Ptg. Mills (herein after called as SVDPM) were engaged in processing man made fabrics. Shri Bakaswala, the second appellant was the Director of the SVDPM. The jurisdictional officers searched the premises, recovered certain documents and seized certain unaccounted fabrics. After recording the statements of the concerned persons, show cause notice was issued. The Collector after hearing the persons confiscated the goods, permitted their redemption and appropriated the security. He also confirmed duty on these goods as well ...

Suntex Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.,rakesh Vs. Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of 19 applicants before us, Suntex Fabrics Pvt Ltd, is the processor of textile fabrics. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has found that it short paid duty totalling Rs. 58.62 lakhs on the fabrics processed by it, demanded duty and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on it and of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on Sureshkumar Chug, its director. He has offered the processor a fine of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for redemption of the plants, machinery etc which he has ordered confiscation. He has imposed penalties under Rule 209A as listed in Annexure on the persons who gave the grey fabrics to the processor for processing.2. The show cause notice breaks up the demand of duty into four elements. Out of this payment of duty totalling to Rs. 5.48 lakhs approximately on the ground that the manufacturer illicitly removed fabrics processed by it, is not disputed at this stage by its counsel.The next demand of Rs. 41.25 lakhs approx, flows out of entries in a pocket diary seized from the re...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. Goyal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rohit

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These 4 appeals by the Revenue relate to the single Order-in-Appeal and involve the same issue and are, therefore, disposed of vide this single order.2. The 4 respondents were processors of man-made fabrics. Offence cases were booked upon them claiming surreptitious removal of man-made fabrics. In the adjudication orders, duties were confirmed, penalties and fines were imposed and levied. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills set aside the 4 Orders-in-Original as far as they relates to the confiscation, levy of fine and penalties. In the present appeals, the Revenue cites the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. and seeks restoration of the Orders-in-Original.3. I have gone through the submissions and have also heard Shri H.M.George, JDR for the Revenue.4. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court does not cover the same grounds as were covered by the Delhi High Co...

Commr. of Cen. Excise, Nagpur Vs. M/S Shriram Ssk Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the Reference application was called out Shri Sarkar, D.R.submits that the concerned Commissioner has sought to withdraw the subject reference application. He shows the communication No.C/V(2)22/95 dated 20.6.01. I have seen the copy of the same from the D.R.'s file. The reference application is dismissed as withdrawn....

Devidas Pandurang Jadhav Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This reference application was argued by Shri Arun Mehta, advocate Shri B.B. Sarkar, DR represented the Revenue.2. The applicant's brother was a goldsmith. On information, the officers searched the premises. The key was with the present applicant.He opened the lock of the premises. Certain gold strings were seized.The present applicant deposed that his brother had made these stings out of the illegally imported gold. Show cause notices were issued.Penalties were imposed on both the brothers by the Add. Collector. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the present applicant and remitted the penalty imposed upon him. The Collector held that he as not concerned with the gold. The Revenue then filed an appeal. The ld. Single Member of the Tribunal examined all the arguments made before him, appreciated evidence against the applicant including the retraction of the confessional statement and readmission of he confession. He, thereafter, set aside the impugned order and reaf...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Parshuram Foundry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal is disposing of the appeal No. E/2388/98-BOM filed by CCE, Ahmedabad passed the following order: "Amount involved is Rs. 23,339/-. No question of law exists. Question of fact is involved.Appeal is not admitted." 2. The present application has been filed by the appellant Commissioner raising question of law arising not out of the order of the Tribunal but not of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) which was impugned before the Tribunal.3. The order of the Tribunal was apparently passed in terms of the power vested under the 2^nd proviso to Sec.35B(1) of the Central Excise Act. This section confers upon the Tribunal the power to refuse appeal in certain circumstances. No question of law is capable of arising out of this order. The application is misplaced and is dismissed....

Kay Tex Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are not present. The intimation sent to the Consultant has been returned back. On earlier occasions also none represented the appellants. The appeal, is, therefore, being taken up for disposal on perusal of the submissions in the appeal memorandum and after hearing Shri Pardeshi, DR for the Revenue.2. The appellants were engaged in processing of grey man made fabrics.In a search of their premises, the officers found stock of processed fabrics which was not recorded in the statutory registers. They also found evidence indicating removal without payment of duty of Rs.82,918/-. After issue of show cause notice and after hearing the parties, the Collector of Central Excise, Surat passed orders confiscating the goods, confirming the duty and imposing fine and penalty on the appellants. Hence, the appeal.3. In the appeal memorandum, it is claimed that the mere existence of unrecorded goods does not suggest intention to remove. It is claimed that the department had not disc...

Hemant Plastic and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of four appeals before him including this one.2. The counsel for the appellant rightly points out that the issue that was considered by the Assistant Commissioner in the order that was appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) is very different from the issue that has been considered in the other three orders passed by him. The issue in the order leading to the present appeal, was the includibility of the cost of printing in the assessable value of layflat to be manufactured by the appellant. The issue in the other three orders were different-eligibility of entry number 57 of the Table to notification 4/97 to the plant bags that the appellant manufactured, and whether the manufacturer entitled to pay duty on an intermediate product notwithstanding they are exempted by notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) order therefore does not dispose of the appeal filed against the order in question.3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the im...

Enertech Ups Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for condonation of delay of two months and 12 days. The Counsel for the applicant says that the applicant received from the office of the Assistant Commissioner a photocopy of the order dated 23.12.1999 on 2.3.2000. It approached the Commissioner (Appeals) to get the original copy of the order-in-appeal which it received on 15.5.2000. The appeal was filed on 14.8.2000. He contends that in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 35A of the Act the Commissioner (Appeals) required to communicate the order passed by him to the appellant or the adjudicating authority under the Commissioner of Central Excise. Such communication only took place on 15.5.2000. Hence the time limit for filing the appeal commence run from this day.2. We are not able to persuade ourselves able to accept this proposition. The appellant, in our view, the order in question has been communicated to the applicant on 2.3.2000 and that such copy of the order that was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals...