Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 5,45,591/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The duty was confirmed and the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, on a modvat dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessee to deposit the duty as a pre-condition of hearing of their appeal. This order was issued on 31/01/2000. On noticing that no compliance was made, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal in terms of Section 35F of the Act on 17/04/2001. Hence the appeal.2. It is claimed that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was delayed in communication among the offices of the assessee. it was claimed that the case is strong on merit.3. I observe that the claim as to the non-compliance with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order lacks merit. At this stage I would not look at the merits of the case but would direct the assessee to deposit the entire duty confirmed within six weeks from today. On such deposit being made the condition of pre-deposi...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Videocon Appliances Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein who are manufactures of washing machine, refrigerators, air-conditioners etc. avail of modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. Credit of Rs.4,96,929.29 was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that (a) the gate passes were issued after 1.4.94 when invoice system had came into existence. (b) That the invoices were issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by a manufacturer while credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by importer. (c) That chapter heading of the Tariff was correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that original copy was available, that the manufacturer was also the importer and therefore the invoice was valid and that the defect of not mentioning the chapter heading of the tariff was also rectified subsequently. As regards credit availed...

Cosmos Films Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

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...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Catchem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has filed the above the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has accepted that the correct date of the invoice is 7.7.94 and not 5.7.94 as shown on the invoice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through the record and found that the supplier had produced a letter dt. 3.1.95 to the Assistant Commissioner about the date of clearance and he has also noticed that the Assistant Commissioner whose order is now sought to be restored by the department had not given any reason for denying or rejecting the appellants plea that while typing the date of Invoice, they typed 5.7.94 instead of 7.7.94. which is the correct date.2. No question of law arises and amount of duty is also very negligence there is nothing in the appeal memorandum to show that the correct date is 5.7.94 and therefore the Commissioner has erred in accepting the date as 7.7.94. No purpose will be served by admitting the appeal.Therefore I decline to admit this appeal which is accordingly...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jagruti Texturising Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The basis for the department's application is that the Tribunal has not correctly applied the ratio of the decision of the Chennai bench in CCE v. Sellammal Spinners 1998 (77) ECR 524.2. We have heard the departmental representative. Respondent is absent unrepresented despite notice.3. In its order under reference, the Tribunal had held that by applying the Chennai bench decision, it is only clearances from the date on which the manufacturer chose to avail of notification 1/93 that should be considered. The decision of the Tribunal in fact seems to say that it is from the date on which the goods were specified in the notification that would be available. That date would ordinarily be different from the date the manufacturer chose to opt for the notification. There is thus an error apparent on the record in the order. Accordingly the order is recalled and the matter posted for hearing afresh on 13.11.2001....

Satish B. Mehta, Rakesh S. Mehta, Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Today these applications came up for stay and after waiving the pre-deposit we have taken up the disposal themselves of the appeals.2. The appellant Mehta Trading Pvt. Ltd., appellant in Appeal C/681/01 imported glass beeds and they filed bill of entry No. 3598 dated 9.8.95 also invoice 9643186 dated 23.6.95. The goods were supplied by M/s.Swarovski, an Austrian company and the value of goods was declared as Austrian shillings referred to as ATS 122130 at unit price of ATS 60 per kg. The clearance of the aforesaid goods were claimed duty free against transferable advance free licence dated 16.2.95. The show cause notice dated 25.3.96 was issued (page 142 of the paper book) rejecting the transaction value and seeking to enhance the value on the basis of the price list and determination of duty enhanced as reflected in Annexure 2 to show cause notice (page 201). The reply to the show cause notice was filed and there were also invoices. Search was conducted by the department on the pr...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Jobshan Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT426Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the appellant did not contravene the condition contained in the third clause of the proviso to notification 245/83 and was therefore entitled to its benefit. The notification grants partial exemption to patent or proprietary medicaments. The proviso required that the manufacturer must claim exemption under the notification "in respect of medicine cleared by him, retail price of which is specified in the said price list." It is clear from the notification that the price list referred to in it is that specified in paragraph 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979.2. The allegation of contravention of the condition in the proviso to the notification was made on the ground that the respondent did not declare the price of goods that it manufactured as a loan licensee, that is to say, i.e. on behalf of another manufacturer which it referred to the principal manufacturer. The price list referred to in the Drug (Pric...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the respondents herein are entitled to credit of duty availed on the strength of a total number of 15 invoices. The credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the documents under which the credit was availed are not valid in terms of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules 1944, and on the ground that the respondents had violated the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudication order however holds that credit is not admissible for the reasons that the invoices in question neither bear were the preprinted serial numbers nor are they preauthenticated, invoices do not indicate time of removal of goods by the dealer, and do not bear the cross reference of the original manufacturer of the goods. The lower appellate authority has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that registration of dealers who issued the invoice...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Videocon International Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the respondents herein are eligible to credit availed by them on the strength of invoice issued by manufacturer-cum-importer.2. There is no dispute that the goods were imported by the manufacturer in this case and there is no prohibition against a manufacturer being an importer. This being so, the respondents having rightly been held to be entitled to the credit. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected....

A. Himanshu and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by confiscation of one lot of 4499.50 carats of rough diamonds imported by them under bill of entry dt. 31.7.96 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. The confiscation arises as a result of holding that there was invoicing to the extent of Rs. 17,39,732/- by showing value of the diamonds as US$ 36.00 per ct. while they were examined and found to be valued at only US$ 26 per ct. It is the submission of the appellant that the mention of US$ 36 per ct. was a mistake committed by the supplier in Antwerp who has explained this as due to the invoice being made by the polish department staff when there were several holidays in Antwerp and the Commissioner has also accepted that there is substance in the plea of wrong invoice.2. On hearing both sides and noting that the explanation of wrong invoicing is plausible and borne out by letter dt. 16.8.1996 written by the foreign supplier and also noting that the Commissioner himse...