Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Anil B. Jindal and Godavari Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded herein below we dispense with the pre-deposit of the penalties of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed on M/s. Godavari Enterprises and Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on Anil Jindal under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and proceed to dispose off the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are concerned with regard to the import of clover seeds under the guise of amaranthus seeds. The importers themselves have admitted that they had asked for goods to be wrongly described and declared as amaranthus seeds while they were really clover seeds and these two, namely amaranthus seeds and clover seeds are two different products. We note that the importers had abandoned the goods. In these circumstances the question of sustaining or setting aside the penalty alone remains for decision before us.3. In view of the admission made by the importer and the distinction between the two types of seeds we hold that the penalty is imposable on both the appellants. However...

Albert Granites Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals abate as result of settlement under the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Hence these appeals are dismissed....

Exim India Corporation, Mega Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals of M/s. Mega Exports and Exim India Corporation abate as a result of the settlement under Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Appeal of Shri Ramesh Mehta, one of the partner in Exim India Corporation, also abates as a result of the above settlement....

Jaswant Steel Rolling Mills P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC787

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of about Rs. 39.35 lakhs. The amount represents duty that was payable by the applicant consequent upon determination of its annual capacity in terms of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant essentially is that, sufficient material on the basis of which the determination was arrived at had not been made available to it. We do not at this stage find it possible to agree. The order dated 1.12.1998 of the Commissioner which determined the capacity, based upon various parameters specified in the Rules, says that they were verified by the officers in the presence of the authorised representative of the assessee and two independent witnesses. The order also indicates that a copy of the verification report was made available to the applicant. It is simple arithmetic calculation, involving all the parameters, in accordance with the formula prescribed in the Rule...

Sohum Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner holding that the activity undertaken by Sohum Industries Pvt. Ltd. of cutting and slitting thermal paper amounted to manufacture, on demanding duty on the resultant cut and slit rolls, and imposing penalty on the manufacturer as well as on R.B. Sugla, its director.2. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that this cutting and slitting does not amount to manufacture. He relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in CCE v. True Graph Charts Pvt. Ltd. 1999 (105) ELT 341 and CCE v. Reelco Paper Products (P) Ltd. 3. The common ratio of these decisions is that cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of paper into smaller rolls does not amount to manufacture.There is no change in the name, characteristics and use of paper, and no transformation into a distinct and separate commodity takes place.We have our reservations about the correctness of this view. On being asked by us, counsel for the appellant admits that the rolls...

Textile Corporation of Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant has facilities in its factory for carrying out bleaching, dying., printing and mercerising of textile fabrics. It subjects the fabrics that it buys to any one or more of its processes, pays duty at one time and clears them. Notice issued to it alleged that it was required it to pay duty each time the fabric was subjected to one process. Thus, in the case of fabrics which were subjected to bleaching and dying, duty was required by the appellant to be paid on the bleached fabrics, once again upon that fabric when it was dyed, and a third time when that dyed fabric was subjected to printing. Penalty was also proposed. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. His order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (appeals), the manufacturer is before us.2. Note 3 to Chapter 52, note 4 to chapter 54 and note 4 to chapter 55 of the Tariff provide that, in relation to the fabrics specified in the notes, "bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water-pr...

Yogi Texturisers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration is this appeal is whether the appellant could take modvat credit of the duty paid in synthetic yarn used by it in the manufacture of fabrics. The credit has been disallowed on the ground that it was taken on original copies of invoices whereas in terms of Rule 57H, the credit should have been taken on duplicate copies.2. The goods were manufactured by Reliance Industries Ltd. at Patalganga. The invoices under which credit was taken were issued by its depot at Surat. By virtue of the powers contained in the rules, the Board, in its circular 76/76/94-CEX dated 6.11.1994 prescribed the documents which were valid for taking credit. Neither this order nor any of the rules, prescribed any particular copy as valid for this purpose. It is only with effect from 2.11.1995, by means of notification 2/95 that Rule 574A was inserted into Rule 57GG prescribing the duplicate copy of invoice for taking modvat credit. At the time that the appellant took credit, theref...

Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1148Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant seeks early hearing of the above appeal on the ground that the goods in question, i.e., designs and drawings for maintenance of the crane and for ordering spares for the same are urgently required by them and they also submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta 2001 (129) ELT 245. Learned DR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the bench.2. In view of the submissions made before us and on the contents of the application we are satisfied that the grounds for listing the appeal early are made out. Accordingly we fix the appeal for hearing on 11^th October, 2001....

Rutvi Steels and Alloys P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty of Rs. 72,006/- has been demanded on the ground that, after redetermining the capacity of the applicant of rolling mill, under Rule 4 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 the duty is to be paid on the actual capacity of the mill determined in terms of Rule 5 based on the actual production in 1996-97.2. The counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE 2001 (127) ELT 46 holding that the provisions of Rule 5 will not apply in cases of redetermination. The departmental representative contends that this decision ignores the provisions of the Rules and requires reconsideration.3. At this stage, being bound by the subsisting decision of the Tribunal, we waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery....

Ajanta Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit, with consent of both sides.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that the goods imported by the appellant in pursuance of an advance licence issued to it were not eligible for benefit of notification 203/92, for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of the import product.3. It is the contention of the representative of the appellant that, although credit was availed of, it was repaid, with the interest payable thereon, in conformity with orders of the Government of India granting amnesty in such cases. Therefore the benefit of notification could not be denied. He contends that the reply that was sent by the appellant was not considered by the Commissioner.4. There is prima facie support in the contention raised by the appellant. We therefore think it proper that this contention should be examined in detail by the Commissioner. For this purpose, therefore, we allow the appe...