Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Patel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of duty and stay recovery thereof and proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with the consent of both sides since the issue in dispute stands settled by the larger bench decision in the case of Sawan Mal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills V. CCE, Chandigarh-I 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein applied for discharging duty liability under Section 3(a) of the Central Excise read with Rule 3(3) of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The annual capacity of production was calculated as per the formula laid down under the Rules. Subsequently on 01/04/1999 the appellant requested for redetermination on account of change in parameters changing the value of factor (d) i.e., namely 'diameter of finishing mill in m.m.', from 198 m.m. to 158 m.m. As per the changed value the annual capacity of product was calculated at 1091.959 M.Ts. As provided under Rule 5 of the Rules in a case, where...

Jayant K. Furnishers, Jayantilal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed the total duty demand of Rs. 2,25,68,666/- on various items of furniture falling under Chapters 44, 70, 76 and 94 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 manufactured and cleared by the appellant No. 1 during the period from 1993-94 upto January, 1999 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,53,26,860/- on appellant No. 1, in addition to a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs each on the other two appellants, who are partners of appellant No. 1.2. The brief facts of the case are that the M/s. Jayant K. Furnishers (herein after referred to as JKF) are engaged in the manufacture of various furniture items which are manufactured either at their factory or at the site of their clients. On 22/08/1996 Central Excise officers searched their premises and they seized certain records/documents relating to manufacture and removal of furniture items and also recorded statement of both the partners, on subseq...

Cewat (India) Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case duty demand of Rs. 24,15,000/- has been confirmed for the period 16.12.1998 to 15.03.1999 and penalty of Rs. One lakh has been imposed upon the applicants on the ground that the applicants used a new stenter machine to process fabrics, in addition to the existing stenter machine. It is the submission of the applicants that the new stenter machine was commissioned only in March, 1999 and could not be used prior to that date in the absence of supply of stenter clips. He further submits that since a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs already stand paid at the time of investigation, no further pre-deposit is called for.2. The prayer for waiver is opposed by the ld.D.R. who draws the attention of the Bench to the fact that Shri Joseph John Pereia, proprietor of the applicants had stated that the new hot air stenter machine has been installed and fully commissioned by the last week of November, 1998, that the Director of the stenter manufacturing company had stated that the new stenter mac...

Motor Industries Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs and staying recovery thereof, we proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant herein on the ground that they had availed inadmissible modvat credit on capital goods during December, 1998. Demand of Rs. 12,89,904/- was confirmed on this basis and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed by the Dy.Commissioner. The assessee went up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who while setting aside the impugned order of the Dy.Commissioner with directions that all facts relating to disputed issue should be examined once again, directed that the appellant should maintain an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs in their modvat account, i.e., RG 23-C Part II.3. The appellant contended that once the order of the adjudicating authority has been set aside it becomes a nullity and therefore no condition can be attached to the order of remand. They...

Carrara Marble and Granite Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of Rs. 7,68,257/- confirmed as duty and penalty of Rs. 40,000/- imposed upon the appellant and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The case of the department is that the appellants who had imported goods duty free under the Value Based Advance Licencing Scheme in terms of Notification No. 203/92 Cus dated 19.5.92 had also simultaneously availed modvat facility on inputs used in the manufacture of the products against which VBAL was obtained by them or which were used for discharge of the export obligation against such Advance Licences, which was contrary to Condition No. v(a) of the above Notification and hence the benefit of duty free clearance is not available to them. We find that the appellants filed reply to the show cause notice in which they clearly stated that they had availed credit of duty paid on inputs imported under the Notification Supdt. of Central Excise confirming the above p...

La Cure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT78Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The duty of Rs. 4800/- has been deposited. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 24000/-.2. The dispute relates to classification of choline chloride. The applicant claims its classification as a animal feed suppliment under heading 23.02 of the Tariff, whereas the impugned order confirms its classification under 29.23 as organic compound.3. Apart from the fact that it would be ordinarily inappropriate to impose penalty in a matter relating to classification, the classification of the product under heading claimed by the applicant appears to have been accepted by the larger bench decision in Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd. v. CCE...

Afzalpurkar Vishwanath Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR279; 2002(2)BomCR659; 2002(3)MhLj234

N.V. Dabholkar, J. 1. The petition challenges Constitutional validity of Rule 12(3) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1958, to the extent it prescribes limitation of six months for claiming refund of life time tax.2. Petitioner was resident of Aurangabad and he owned a Luna Moped (Two wheeler), which he had purchased on 8-7-1986. It was registered as MFV 6380 by paying tax for one year as per the then scheme of Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. In the year 1987, respondent No. 1 introduced a scheme by amendment to the said Act. Under the scheme, petitioner deposited one time tax of Luna Moped on 28-7-1987.On retirement from service with Government of Maharashtra, petitioner shifted his residence from Aurangabad to Hyderabad since his only son is an Advocate practicing at Andhra Pradesh High Court. Petitioner obtained no objection certificate from the office of respondent No. 3 and thereafter registered his Moped at Hyderabad with Registration No. AHS 1982 on 2-7-1988. Petition...

Lalchand Manakchand Mehta Vs. Neelamchand Harakchand Mehta and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR795; 2003(51)BLJR17

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner has filed this civil application for condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal. According to the petitioner, there is a delay of 402 days in filing the first appeal.3. The petitioner (original defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 1980) and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) are brothers. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 1980 for partition and separate possession of the property. On 31-10-1984, a preliminary decree was drawn. The respondent Nos, 1 and 2 are declared to have 1/2 share in the suit properties. The Court Commissioner was appointed to suggest partition. The Court Commissioner submitted his report. The learned trial Court thereafter passed final decree on 24-12-1999. The Commissioner's report Exh. 207 is made part and parcel of the final decree.4. The petitioner then file...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Arun Udyog, Patalia Industries,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1076Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Stay applications in the above 16 appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot came up for hearing on 23.5.2000. The Bench noted that no statement of facts, grounds of appeal and the authorisation to the Deputy Commissioner to file appeal and stay application were filed in original. The Bench pointed out the defects repeatedly to the Revenue. Notice was issued by the Registry asking for the statement of facts and grounds of appeal. Since the documents as required under the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules were not filed, appeals were dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 vide order No.C.I/2085-2100/00 WZB dated 2.6.2000. One application was filed seeking restoration of the 16 appeals. The application was listed on 14.6.01 and by order No.C.I/1842/01-WZB dated 16.7.01, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to enable the Commissioner to respond tot he query as to whether direction of the Bench regarding filing of the necessary document was communicated to the...

Apte Amalgamations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The representative of the applicant contends that duty of Rs. 3.75 crores approx., penalty of equal amount are payable.The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit was availed of in the manufacture of exported product.2. The representative of the applicant contends that the entire amount has been paid. The amount of credit has been repaid and the applicant is entitled to the amnesty scheme. However the letter of the applicant to the Commissioner itself indicates that only part has been paid.Prima facie therefore merits of the case are against the applicant.However on the ground of financial hardship since the applicant is closed and has incurred losses of Rs. 14 crores in the period from 1998, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery....