Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Lloyds Metal and Engg. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(100)LC519Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Two orders of the Commissioner impugned in these appeals dismissed the appeals filed before him by the appellant, for failure to deposit of the entire duty and penalty that was confirmed. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner were passed in the following circumstances. The appellant manufactured steel pipes. It cleared most of these pipes for home consumption on payment of duty. It cleared some quantity without payment of duty to a buyer, who after subjecting the pipes to various processes, exported them. Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 provides that the Central Government may specify materials the removal of which may be permitted by the Commissioner without payment of duty for use in manufacture in bond of export goods. Notification 47/94 issued by the Central Government under this rule specifies all excisable goods and prescribed the procedure for this purpose. Rule 12 enables the government to grant rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid on material used i...

Jams Engineering P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By letter dated 4.9.2001 the appellant seeks withdrawal of the appeal....

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion, there having been no compliance with the requirement pointed out by the registry of a clearance from Committee of Secretaries of the Cabinet Secretariat since the applicant is a undertaking of the Government of India.3. In the total absence of response from the appellant, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for want of clearance. The appellant is given liberty to seek revival of the appeal assuming that it had been applied for, if such clearance is received....

Pressure Sensitive Systems India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive predeposit of duty of Rs. 2,61,657.29 confirmed on Rubberised Textile Fabrics falling under sub-heading 5905.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 5/87 is not availed to the goods, and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the assessees and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.In this case show cause notice was issued to the assessee on the basis of Chemical Examiner's Report dt. 23.2.94 stating that "samples ----- are Textile material coated with Rubber Based Adhesive. These are not rubberised textile fabrics Notification No. 5/87 dt. 15.1.87 covers only Rubberised Textile Fabrics and not the Textile material coated with adhesive based on Rubber. Hence the question of rubber content and weight per square meter does not arise." However the adjudicating authority has relied upon Dy. Chief Chemist report dt. 13.8.93 giving the weight per square meter and per...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Entel Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent to this appeal sold projection television set to an organisation named India Campus Crusade for Christ, Madras at a price lower that the price at which it sold the goods to other buyers. The price list for sale of the goods was approved. However, subsequently notice was issued proposing recovery of the duty on the ground that there was no justification for sale of these goods at a lower price.The respondent, in its reply, took the stand that it was a part of larger organisation based in the U.S.A. and the payment for the goods had been made in foreign exchange by that organisation. It also pointed out that in the light of payment had been made in foreign exchange the sale of goods constituted deemed export. Hence it was a different class of buyer. The Assistant Commissioner did not accept this plea. He held that there was no evidence that the order has been placed on the direction of the foreign organisation and that the goods did not constitute deemed export. He con...

The Kolhapur Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT918Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Modvat credit has been denied on the following items on the ground that they are not inputs eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules:- The grounds for denial of credit as seen from the impugned order is that no submissions had been made by the appellants to contravent the findings of the Additional Commissioner that the goods are not entitled to modvat credit. At the outset it is stated by the appellants that the denial of credit on these items by the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by them in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) by relying upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. v. Collector, but they had no opportunity to explain in detail as impugned order was passed without granting personal hearing to them. However, since the items have been held to be eligible to credit by several decisions of the Tribunal. He prays that credit may be extended to items in dispute and the appeal allowed.2...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Neelkamal Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent could have a lower price for the chairs that it sold to Yogiji Maharaj Centenary Celebrations than the price at which it sold these chairs to it dealers. The notice issued to it proposed that the goods that it sold to the Celebrations should be assessed at the same price at which it sold the chairs to the dealers on the ground that there cannot be different prices for different class of buyers. The Assistant Collector held that such different class of buyers is permissible and, on appeal from his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this view. Hence this appeal.2. The ground in the appeal emphasizes that the buyer was granted a lower price not only on account of large numbers of chairs but also because, in response to the purchase, the seller was permitted to install a free stall at the Celebrations and also advertising for products. This however, is not in the ground in the show cause notice.The notice ...

Serene Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(123)ELT909Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive predeposit of duty of Rs.3.5 crores approximately confirmed against the appellants herein as representing duty on interest on receivables. Against the confirmation of duty demand by the Assistant Commissioner by two separate orders-in-Original both dt. 26.10.98, the assessee filed one appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed conditional stay order dated 17.3.99 directing predeposit of Rs.1 Crore out of the total demand in both cases. The predeposit was required to be made by 30.3.99. It is the contention of the appellants that they did not receive the stay order until April 1999 and immediately on receipt of the same, they filed an application for modification on 15.5.99, however neither has the lower appellate authority considered their prayer for modification nor has he heard them before dismissing their appeal for non compliance with the stay order. The appellants therefore pray that they may be heard once again before the Commissio...

K. Venkateswara Rao Vs. Phoenix Share and Stockbrokers (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]115CompCas818(Bom)

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is one of the four directors of the respondent-company. He has prayed for a winding up order from this court under Section 433(f) read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). According to the petitioner, in the given circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to order winding up of the respondent-company.2. The respondent-company has filed its affidavit in reply to contest the petition on its maintainability as also on the merits of the case. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder to the said affidavit-in-reply of the respondent-company. It is the petition against the remaining three directors of the respondent-company. The three directors are resisting very seriously the attempt of the petitioner to bring about the economic death of the respondent-company.3. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties at length. Both learned counsel have extensively referred to me the whole of the proceedings and both have cited a ...

Parle Beverages Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 96.66 lakhs approax. and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. The applicant is a manufacturer of beverages bearing various brand names of Coca-Cola Co. Ltd. It was supplied the concentrate for making these beverage by Britco Foods Ltd. This company also reimbursed to it part of the expenses that it incurred on advertising the beverages that it manufactured. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the view of the Commissioner that the expenses ultimately borne by Britco Foods Ltd. are includable in the assessable value of the goods that the applicant manufactured.3. Prima facie the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Hariyana Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2000 (40) RLT 769 on the identical issue. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery....