Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Uni Deritend Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT586Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants filed a Shipping Bill prescribing the goods as "Ferrous Investment & Precision castings - Rough Unmachined Castings of Hunting Tool". On examination of the goods, they were found to be parts of fire arms. On a reference made, the Dy. General Manager, Ordanance Factory, Ambarnath observed as below:- "The sample received vide your letter under reference has been examined. It is found that it is a ferrous casting in rought unmachined condition. Hence it can be concluded that the said item has attained the essential character of the component/part, Regarding the classification of the item, under any of the category of the arms, we are not in a position to comment." 2. Show cause notice was issued alleging that the goods tendered for export had attained the essential character of parts of shotgun. It was alleged that when the manufacturer imports or exports fire arms, parts thereof, licence under Sections 10 & 11 of the Arms Act 1959 was required. In absence of su...

BasseIn Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty of Rs. 81,900.40 confirmed on the ground that in terms of Rule 57CC the applicant were required to pay a sum equal to 8% of the price of the goods cleared duty free in a situation where the assessee was manufacturing both final dutiable products and final exempted products out of common inputs and penalty of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the applicant, learned Counsel states that the case against the applicant is entirely mis-conceived as the final products cleared during the period in, dispute namely, 07/04/1998 to 19/5/1998 were manufactured out of the old stock balance of inputs on which no modvat credit was taken. He submits that this plea was taken in the reply to the show cause notice and the documents to substantiate the applicant's claim were also filed before the department. But the authorities below have not considered these submissions and have held that credit was taken after 06/04/1998 on inpu...

Ankit Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner finds that the goods that the appellant imported were not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that one of the conditions contained in the notification, the modvat credit should not be availed in the manufacture of export products, had been contravened.3. Counsel for the appellant contends that it had imported these goods in terms of an advance licence which had been transferred to it by the person to whom the licence was issued. He contends, however, that it was unable to bring these facts to the notice of the Commissioner because the appellant had not received the notice or any intimation of hearing.4. We note that the show cause alleges that the exporter had indicated in the export documents that no modvat credit had been availed of. It does not indicate any grounds in support of which contention that modvat credit has been availed of.5. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the i...

Visnagar Taluka Audyogic Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant herein is engaged int he manufacture of paper based decorative laminated sheets. From 01/03/1987 the appellant started paying excise duty under CETA sub-heading 3920.31 and availing modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the above products, after filing declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.However, subsequently, they were of the view that the product falls for classification under CETA sub-heading 4818.90/4823.90 and hence filed an appeal before Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against classification by the Assistant Collector under Chapter 39. The appellate authority rejected the claim of the assessee who went up in appeal before the Tribunal which accepted the claim for classification under Chapter 48 and allowed the appeal. Consequent upon the Tribunal's order the appellant filed a refund claim for amount paid in excess being the difference in rate if duty between Chapter 39 and Chapter 48 of CETA and while granting the r...

Siddhi Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below I waive pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs.16,100/- and Rs. 1,100/- respectively imposed upon the appellant herein who are tour operators and proceed to dispense with the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Penalty has been imposed on the ground that returns under the Service Tax Act were not filed for the quarters ending March, 1998 and June, 1998 while for the half year ending March, 1999 the returns were filed with a delay of 11 days. It is the submission of the appellant that prior to 16/10/1998 they were not covered within the ambit of service tax as service tax provided by a Rent-A-Cab scheme operator was to be paid only by those operators who held a licence granted under the Rent-A-Cab Scheme, 1998 which is granted to a person who maintains not less than 50 motor cabs and therefore prior to 16/10/1998 the appellant who was maintaining well below 50 motor cabs was not liable to service tax. He submits that only w.e.f. 16/10/1998 the defini...

Titan Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by denial of modvat credit on three items namely spectrometer, transformer and electric control panel. The first item is in the nature of measuring instrument and the other two are electrical goods for generation and control of electricity.3. Spectrometer is used for measuring wavelength of spectra i.e., for measuring molecular structure of the material. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tool steel used for the manufacture of cutting tools and in order to check whether the steel tool has acquired specific hardness and molecular composition the spectrometer is used.It has been held by the Tribunal that testing and measuring instruments are capital goods entitled to take credit under Rule 57Q and therefore credit is admissible to the appellant on spectrometer.4. The other two items are electric transformers and control panel.Transformer is a device for generating alternative current into one of higher or lower voltage by electric-mag...

New Alfa and Tayyab Yunus Khatri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three applications relate to three appeals filed by the applicants. The facts are common. The issue involves seizure and confiscation of miscellaneous imported consumer goods and of imposition of penalty on the concerned persons. The total value of goods confiscated is Rs. 15,57,330/- Counsel submits that these are stocking trade of the shop that the applicants have very strong cases on merit.I have examined the documents and find the prayer to be valid. It appears that five more appeals have been field by the persons aggrieved with the orders as have given rise to the present application.Accepting the early hearing application I direct that these appeals namely C/445/2000-Mum, C/798/2000-Mum and C/28/2000-Mum be posted for hearing out of turn along with C/44/2000-Mum, C/799/2000-Mum., C/29 to 31/2000-Mum....

Transpek Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT189Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide Order No. C-I/4473-80/98/WRB/ dt. 1.12.1998, the Tribunal allowed the appeals following the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [1997 (93) ELT 594]. The ratio of the Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. judgment was subsequently approved by a Larger Bench in the case of Ballapur Industries Ltd. [2000 (116) ELT 312].2. When this reference application was heard stated to arise out of the aforesaid order dt. 1.12.98, Departmental Representative was directed to ensure whether an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court against the Ballapur Industries Ltd. judgment. Shri R.K. Pardeshi shows me letter C-IV/3/2000-CE dt. 28.11.2000 from CCE Managlore-3 that a proposal was made to file an appeal in are Ballapur. Shri JC Patel appearing for the respondents submits that as per his information, the appeal had been admitted.3. Since the issues are before the Supreme Court there is no point in referring the question arising o...

Mirza Steels Re-rolling Mills P. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded herein below I dispense with the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 83,836.26 representing modvat credit disallowed and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The duty demand arises as a result of denial of modvat credit on capital goods. After the assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit as well as imposed penalty the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with application for waiver of pre-deposit. The stay order was passed on 26/12/1999 without hearing the assessee. This order was received by the assessee on 04/01/2000 and the appeal itself came to be dismissed for non-compliance on 31/01/2001 and the order was received by the assessee on 15/02/2001. The final order was also passed without hearing the assessee.3. In these circumstances I am of the view that interest of justice require the matter to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall f...

Jyoti Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 1,24,021.97 has been disallowed to the appellant who are manufacturers of, enamelled winding wire of coper, which were covered by three gate passes on the ground that they were Photostat copies. The appellant submitted that the original GP1 copy was misplaced in transit and hence they had availed credit on the strength of xerox copy of GP1 and a certificate issued by the Range Superintendent, in charge of the suppliers factory, confirming that the goods under the consignment were duty paid. He submits that prior to the period in dispute it had been clarified by the Board by circular dated 30/11/1992 that if the original or subsidiary gate pass was lost or misplaced then the manufacturer could obtain a certified copy of the gate pass from the Range Superintendent in charge of the input producers factory and on the basis of such certified copy credit could availed. However, this facility was withdrawn w.e.f. 15/12/1992. Once again the facility of availing modvat ...