Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments
Jimtex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. The predeposit of penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs in both cases is waived and recovery thereof stayed and the appeals themselves are taken up for hearing with the consent of both sides as the issue involved falls within a very narrow compass.2. The appellants herein who are process of fabrics are required to pay duty on process fabrics by a particular date They paid duty but beyond the dates fixed in terms of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In one case there was delay of 4 days in payment of duty while in other case there was delay of 15 days. For the late payment, penalty has been imposed. It is the contention of the appellants that the duty demand which was paid beyond the stipulated date arises on processing fabrics using gas fired stenter to which the compounded levy scheme does not apply although they used hot air stenter also in their factory. However, the penalty in the present cases arises out of delay in payment of duty on factories processed using gas fired stenter a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ahmedabad Packaging Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of modvat credit availed by the Respondents herein on the strength of Bills of Entry bearing two endorsements. Credit was sought to be denied on the ground that bill of entry endorsed more than one was not valid duty paying document. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed, credit however Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit on the basis of decision of the Tribunal in the context of endorsed gate passes. Hence these appeals.2. On hearing both sides and noting that in a long line of decisions the Tribunal has held that credit is admissible on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry and noting that no further objection arises in the notice or in the order of the Assistant Commissioner, I hold that credit has been rightly extended by the lower appellate authority and the further objection of the Ld.DR that the interest of Revenue have to be safeguarded by ensuring that credit has not been taken on the same goods by more than on reason and ...
Tag this Judgment!Shreeji Concast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner demands duty which he finds was required to be paid by the appellant following the determination of its annual capacity which he arrived at in his order No. 35/Tech /Commr/2000 dated 12.10.00, which had not been paid.3. In our order in appeal E/320/01 we had laid down the position in law with regard to the determination of the capacity and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for determining the actual capacity of the same manufacturer from the date on which capacity should be given effect. The duty if any payable in accordance with the capacity and the date from which it is payable will therefore have to be determined afresh.4. Accordingly, the order presently impugned in this appeal is set aside and the appeal allowed. The Commissioner shall determine the duty, if nay payable, and the date from which it is payable in accordance with law after determining the changed capacity of the furnace and the date from which the chang...
Tag this Judgment!Prasun Ferro Alloys and Metals, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. Duty demand of Rs. 9,63,770/- has been confirmed by the Commissioner on quantity of 52,786 MTs of Copper Wire/Rods/Strips/Bars and 756.5 Kgs. of Copper Wire Rods. In addition he has imposed a penalty of amount equal of duty on the applicant company and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on two directors of the Company and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the employee of the Company.2. It is the contention of the applicant who are represented by their Counsel that they had sent out Copper Wire Bars to job workers under Rule 57F(4), challans and the processed goods were returned to them and subsequently cleared by them on payment of duty and although the goods returned from the job workers was not accounted for in their statutory records, there is sufficient documentation to show that the goods were not only returned to them by the job worker but were later cleared only on payment of duty. In this connection he refers to invoices issued by the applicant (SIC) evidencing payment of duty upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Technova Imaging Systems Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. On hearing both sides on the stay application the issue being small, the appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The Dy. Commissioner disallowed modvat credit taken under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on Steel Straps as packing material holding that these were not capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the this order based on the declaration filed by the assessee under Rule 57G wherein the straps were declared as packing material. He observed that the entries had been made in RG-23A register. On this observation he allowed the appeal of the assessee the present appeal from the Revenue.3. The claim made in the Revenue's appeal is that the assessee had mis-represented that the credit had been availed of under RG-23A registers whereas in fact it was recorded in RG-23C registers.4. The claim made on behalf of the assessee before me is that this was inadvertent. By mistake a wrong entry was made. The contested revenue is only Rs. 6,000/- The Tribunal in earlier judgments ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Bombay Crown Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri Bodade. Shri M.V.Ravindran represented the assessee.2. The assessee had availed of modvat credit on the basis of gate passes endorsed by the dealers. The dealers had given their invoices also in addition. The credit was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner. He held that where the gate passes were endorsed after 01/04/1994 the gate passes were not modvatable documents. The assessee then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that even if the gate passes were not to be accepted as a valid documents the commercial invoice accompanying the goods could be termed as modvatable documents since they were issued in terms of the requirement of Notification No. 15/94. On his giving relief to the assessee the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue.3. The claim made by the Revenue is that the dealer's invoice did not contain all the details as required by the cited notification. It is claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Metal Works, Kiran K. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. These four appeals have common facts and are disposed off vide this single order.2. In each case there was a delay of 64 days in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the ground for delay was that the assessee were considering filing of the applications under the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme Rules, 1998, that their consultant had delayed the filing and that the Directors were not keeping good health. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept any of the grounds and dismissed the appeal. Hence these appeals.4. I have considered the grounds. I find that each of the grounds given has been held as valid for condonation. Thus in the judgment in the case of Krishna & Company v. Collector 1995 (75) ELT 589 the Tribunal held that the ground that the time so spent for pursuing the matter in another forum was condonable. The delay caused by a consultant has also been held to be a ground for condonation. Bansal Plywood Industries v.CCE 5. I...
Tag this Judgment!Jabbar Singh Thakur, Ganpatraj V. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. The three applications for early hearing do not indicate any specific ground for this claim.2. The common representative of the applicant contends that the case is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in Lalit Kumar R. Jagawat v.CCC/1033/97 and S.K. Chains v. CC 2001 (127) ELT 415 and contends that if these matters are not heard, the guarantee provided in Article 14 of the Constitution is violated.3. Neither of these two decisions indicate the reasons why the appeal was heard out of turn. Neither of them lays down any ratio that would appear to apply to the facts before us. Each of them came to a conclusion that the gold under consideration in the appeal was legally imported after considering the factual situation. In such matters, each case had to be decided on its own facts.4. We are therefore unable to agree that these are covered by the earlier decisions and therefore dismiss the applications....
Tag this Judgment!Cosmos Films Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. The predeposit of duty of Rs. 9,26,587/- confirmed on the ground of wrong availment of modvat credit and penalty of amount equal to duty is waived and recovery thereof stay and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. The duty demand arises on account of alleged shortage of 97 MTs Polypropylene granules during the period of three years. It is the submission of the appellant that shortage on account of process loss incurred at three different stages of manufacture of BOPP Films, which is the final product of the appellants. The Ld. Counsel submits that after hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) then filed written submission explaining the process loss and this explanation was received in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 29.11.2000, but the order was passed on the next date i.e. on 30.11.2000 without considering their submission based on technical literature. He further submits that the demand of duty is not sustainable as it has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Vial Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2001
1. The appeal by the revenue arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that modvat credit of Rs. 2,54,289.48 availed by the Respondents herein on inputs for Alluminium and articles thereof during the period July, 1994 and September, 1994 is admissible to them. The reason for denial of credit raised in the show cause notice and adjudicated in the order-in-original was (1) Non registration of dealers who had issued the invoices. (2) Non mention of certain particulars in the invoices on the basis of which credit was taken.2. On hearing Ld. DR and perusing the records I find that although the dealers were not registered with the Central Excise Department at the time of issue of the invoices namely 4.7.94 and 8.7.94, the requirement of registration came into effect only 4.7.94 and time for registration was extended upto 31.12.94. It is not the case of the department that the dealers did not get registered even subsequently. Further while the Commissioner (Appeals) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »