Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

M/S Atlas Automotive Components Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,28,830/- confirmed against the applicants who are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium castings on job work basis and also manufacture on their own and sell them in the market. The dispute relates to those castings which are manufactured on job work basis.Show cause notice proposed denial of benefit of Notfn. No. 67/95 dated 16.03.95 as amended on the ground that the proviso to the Notification which stipulated that nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty, was violated. However, in the course of the proceedings, the Commissioner has accepted the contention of the applicants that the clearance of the goods by them without payment of duty in terms of Rule 57F(4) to the main manufacturer by itself would not constitute a default of the...

M/S Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ap),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application, we find that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed and penalty imposed as prayed for.2. M/s. Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. present appellants were the holders of a Value Advance Licence. The DEEC book mentioned M/s. Pinnacle Exports Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rajkumar Engg. P.Ltd. as the executors of a joint LUT being the supporting manufacturers of the present appellants.Certain goods were imported in terms of Notification No.203/92 Cus in and terms of this licence without payment of duty. Show cause notice dated 24.4.99 was issued alleging that the manufacturers of the export goods had availed of the input stage and thereby contravened the provisions of the aforesaid notification. On this ground, duty was demanded from the 'importers and the licencee' and they were alleged to be liable to penalty. The show cause notice showed M/s Pinnac...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Anjani Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The respondent to this appeal cleared without payment of duty in terms of notification 47/97 fabrics to a processor who subject them to some processes and exported them. Notice issued to the respondent proposed to deny modvat credit which it had taken of the duty paid on the yarn and other inputs used in the manufacture of such fabrics alleging that they were exempted from payment of duty. The Asst.Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice.3. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) said that the goods which the respondent cleared from its factory in terms of the procedure prescribed in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules were not goods exempted from duty, subject to nil rate of duty and therefore the bar in rule 57C will not apply. He concluded that credit was rightly taken and set aside the Asst. Commissioner's order. This is challenged in appeal before us.4. On an identical is...

Createx Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT826Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein who are manufacturers/exporters of woollen carpets were issued an Import-Export Passbook No. 0000142 dated 22.02.89 for duty free import of certain dyes and chemicals used in the manufacture of woollen carpets under the Passbook Scheme. They commenced export under the above mentioned passbook from 15.11.88 and fulfilled the export obligation by 22.7.90. The imported 21 consignments under the passbook. The case of the department as stated n the show cause notice is that these consignments were not actually used in further manufacture of ex port goods but sold to other than actual users. Thus this resulted in a breach of paragraph 221 of Import Export Policy 1988-91 read with Notification No.117/88 dated 30.3.1988 as amended. The notice proposed recovery of duty of Rs. 75,75,017/- invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts. Penal action was laos proposed in the notice. the adjudicating authority accepted that out of the 21 c...

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal E/3085/500, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Asst. Commissioner that in determining, under rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, the value for assessment of the yarn that the appellant manufactured and utilised in its factory in the manufacture of fabric the cost that it incurred towards advertising and marketing cost are to be included. In the order impugned in appeal E/3084/00, he has upheld the order of the Asst.Commissioner confirming the demand for duty as a consequence.2. In both these orders, the Commissioner expressed the view that in his opinion these charges are not includable but says that he is bound by the circular issued under 37B of the Act by the Board.3. In our order in Cadbury India Ltd. v. CCE in appeal E/1021 and 1022/00, we had noted that the proviso under Section 37B of the Act specifically excluded the applicability of the circular issued under that section so as to interfere with the discretion o...

Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT984Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Notice number S-10/2059/98-Gr.VII dated 7.11.98 was issued to the appellant proposing to recover the duty foregone on the goods that it imported cleared in terms of notification 203/92 on the ground that one of the conditions subject to which exemption contained in the notification is available, that modvat credit should not be taken in the manufacture of the export product had been contravened. By order 651/2000 dated 31.8.2000, Commissioner of Customs (Import), recording the submission of the importer and the fact that it was represented on the hearing before him concluded that modvat credit had not been taken and dropped the proceedings. Another order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, Sahar is impugned in this appeal. Counsel for the appellant contends that second order is once again adjudicated on the same show cause notice and confirmed the demand for duty.3. On reading both the orders, we find that the show cause notice number, the amount of d...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant application has been filed by the department on the ground that the order passed by this bench on 21.8.2000 has referred to larger bench of the Tribunal in Shree Ramakrishna Steel Inds. v. CCE 1996 (82) ELT 575 and held in the order that for refractory bricks the larger bench in the said case has held to be inputs. We have checked the position as desired by the department. We agree with the contention of the department that there is a mistake which is apparent on the face of the record that the said decision deal with refractory bricks.2. However we find that the issue is res integra . However it has to be pointed out that we have referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Singh Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. CCE 1993 (66) ELT 594 having held that similar goods were treated as inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. There are also other decisions brought to our notice by the representative of the assessee. They are Steel Ingots Ltd. v. C...

Kalyani Lemmerz Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT755Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants secured certain capital goods. In terms of the provisions of Rule 57T, necessary declarations had to be filed by them before the receipt of the goods. The rule provided fro condonation of late declaration by the Asstt.Commissioner for a maximum period of three months. The present appellants filed declaration belatedly and sought condonation of the delay. The Asstt.Commissioner vide his letter dated 31.8.95 condoned the delay in certain cases and in other cases, the delay was not condoned. The assessee did not file any appeal against this order. Show cause notice was issued on 22.12.95 seeking reversal/recovery of the credit claimed on the capital goods in the case of which condonation had not been granted. Such demand came to Rs. 11,94,801.71. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner passed orders directing reversal of the credit. In doing so, he observed that it was for the assessee to have filed an appeal against the denial of condonation in the case of remaini...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT831Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application is for rectification of an error in the Tribunal's order No. C.II/3229/99/WZB dated 22.11.99. The issue before the Tribunal was whether a demand for earlier period alleging suppression etc. on the part of the assessee would be hit by limitation where for a later period the demand was raised under the normal condition. The Tribunal held that limitation would not apply relying on the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Neyvali Lignite Corpn.Ltd. (1992(58) E.L.T. 76 and also in the case of Jai Mata Plywood Co.Pvt.Ltd. (1999(32)RLT 63). In this application, it is claimed that the ratio of the judgments stands negated by the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory was available.2. The subject order was dictated in the Court on 29.9.99. Although, it was issued on 22.11.99, the date of the decision was 29.9.99. This date being prior to the date of pronouncement of Nizam Sugar Factory judgment cannot become a ground for rectific...

Kirti Babulal Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT{A)-XXXIX, Mumbai, and relates to the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. I have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before me. Intimation dt. 4th Aug., 1997, under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), was sent to the assessee. The benefit of indexation cost of acquisition of units under UTI MEP-91 and UTI MEP-92 was denied while computing long-term capital gain on repurchase of the said units of the UTI. Assessee filed application under Section 154, which was rejected, CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. Being aggrieved of the order of the CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The short question before the Tribunal is whether the benefit of indexation could be allowed to the assessee in respect of the capital gain arising on repurchase of units referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 80CCB of the Act.3. Section 45(6) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1990,...