Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Forging Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. PI/6/2001 dt. 10.1.2001 the appeal came up for admission on 22.10.2003. The appeal is admitted and the main appeal itself is taken up for consideration.2. Briefly the facts are that the Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order observed that the respondents are manufacturers of steel castings and forgings. For the heat treatment of these items furnace is required which is in the nature of capital goods. The tray castings HR Trays and Alkar rolls, furnace castings and Bracket for HR Trays are the parts of furnace and therefore are eligible for capita goods credit. He also held that electric wires and cables and switches used in the factory of production are eligible items of capital goods as held by the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1999 (108) ELT 47]. Thus the Commissioner's (Appeal) upheld the order of the lower authority, the Revenue came in appeal ag...

Uni Abex Alloy Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal came up for admission on 22.10.2003. The appellant in his written communication dt. 22.10.2003 has requested the court to decide the case Ex-parte. After hearing the Ld. DR it is decided that the main appeal itself can be disposed off, thus the appeal is admitted and disposed of in this order.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant manufacture castings. They avail of the credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. They despatch the partially processed castings for job work out side the premises. As the time of despatch of such castings they debit the credit taken on the inputs and take back the credit when the processed castings were received back into the factory. In the present case before me, while receiving the castings back from the job worker they have lost the duplicate copy of the challan. As per the rules credit can be taken only on the strength of duplicate copy the loss of which has resulted in denial of credit. The Commi...

Century Rayon Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants appeal is directed against the demand of Rs. 7,98,698/-.3. The demand arose on account of dispute relating to Modvat credit taken against certain invoices in respect of which the Central Excise Authorities had raised certain objection. In the synopsis provided during the hearing, the learned Counsel informs that, credit for a major amount of Rs. 7,37,576/- has been denied on the ground that, the appellants filed declaration for claiming credit after expiry of 3 months. The learned Counsel pleads that the credit is permissible in terms of the larger bench decision of the CEGAT in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 2000 (121) ELT 247 (Tribunal-LB) In the said judgment, it has been held that, the permissibility of credit without filling declaration or against deficient declaration/Documents has been allowed under Sub Rule (11) of Rule 57G which was introduced vide notification No. 7/99-CE (NT) dated 9.2.99 and the ...

Century Rayon Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in this appeal is the eligibility under Rule 57Q as capital goods to a manufacture of Rayon yarn the following items :- "... i) Lead sheets, the appellants submit that Rayon yarn is manufactured by chemical transformation of natural organic polymers-cellulose. In this process acidic chemicals like caustic soda, sulphric acid and other chemicals are used. Rayon yarn machinery which is made of steel can not withstand the chemical reaction in Rayon yarn manufacturing process. The machinery is therefore lined with lead sheets which are corrosion resistant to chemical reaction. The lead sheets as such or after cutting are lined on the Rayon spinning machinery which falls under excise chapter heading 8445.00 and the same is specified for eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. ii) Glass Tubing: the appellants submit that glass tubings are used as such or after converting in glass funnel are the essential part of Rayon yarn spinning machine and guide the movement of yarn. The app...

Lloyds Metals and Engg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT397Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The lower authorities have disallowed Modvat credit in respect of 8 items listed below claiming that these are ineligible for taking credit under Rule 57 Q of the rules.3. The learned C.A. submits that in their own case, the Tribunal vide order No.CI/1900/WZB/2003 dated 29.8.2003 has accepted the eligibility in respect of cement. The appellants submit that item at Serial No. Ill i.e. "Shrinkomop-20" performs the same function as that of cement, which is to strengthen the foundation of the machines. Similarly, reliance is also placed on CEGAT order No. C II/1384-90/WZB/2003 dated 13.6.2003, which is also in their own case, wherein credit on CTD bars (Serial No. VIII of the list) and GC Sheets (Serial No. II) has been held eligible for Modvat credit. Further, it was claimed that Welding electrodes which are used for fixing the machinery with the foundation will also be covered as input on the analogy of credit permitted in respect of "Cement" In the larger bench decision of the Tribu...

Lona Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT406Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture excisable goods namely Dyes and Pigments; they availed modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. They received, Cobalt Sulphate, from M/s. Consolidated Boron Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., a unit from the KFTZ under cover of GP.1.They have taken modvat credit of the duty paid on the said goods amounting to Rs. 1,15,296/-. This amount of duty consisted of two demands Basic Customs duty of Rs. 86,919/- and two CVD of Rs. 28377/-.When it was pointed out to them that they have availed of inadmissible modvat credit of Rs. 86,919/- (being the basic customs duty paid on the input) received from KFTZ the appellants debited the entire modvat credit (Rs. 1,15,296/-) taken even though they are entitled to take credit to the extent of Rs. 28,377/-(Rs. 1,15,296/- Rs. 86919/-) in terms of Notification No. 177/86 dt. 1.3.1986. A show cause notice was subsequently issued and the Assistant Commissioner in his Order-in-Original agreed that as per the Not...

Ajay Singh Deol Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91ITD196(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 19 ^th March 1999 in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95. Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in conforming the disallowance of Rs. 2,92,855, being medical expenses incurred on treatment of wife of appellant's chauffer, on the plea that such expenses are charitable expenses in nature and are not necessitated by business expediency.2. We have heard the parties, perused the records and taken into account factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. Before we come to the core issue in this appeal, it is desirable to briefly set out the material facts.3. The assessee derives income from professional receipts as a cine artist. One person by the name of Shri Rawat (R, in short) was working with the assessee as a chauffer. It is not in dispute that the salaries and allowances paid to R constitu...

Nrc Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals of the same appellant are being disposed off by this common order. Credit has been denied on the following items for the reasons as shown against the item :- Credit claimed under Rule 57Q it is not eligible as it is an eligible under Rule 57A and used only for cooling. iii) O' Ring Diaphrm screw, spring baffe & SA/NozzIe blade A Diaphram SA sozzle :- They being parts of controller used for controlly variable in manufacture process it does not produce/process final product. Used for storage of Air used in instruments for genera tic of steam used only for storage /collection only. Since there are spares of Hydro electric truck used in shifting rayon cakes with the producing. ix) Godet Hub, Godet Hub Net, Ceramic Guide, Funnel Bracket base/holder & Arms, Adapter Skirting :- Invoice in name of Head Office and no movement records for evidencing receipt of the goods.2. On considering, in light of the well settled position, credit on all spares and parts of capit...

Shri Venkateshwara Ind. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants have challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein duty of Rs. 64,923/- and a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11 AC has been confirmed alongwith personal penalty of Rs. 65,000/- imposed under Rule 209 A of CER on the partner.The adjudicating authority had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 173 Q on the appellant company, which was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals), and is not the subject matter of the present appeals.3. In the appeals before the Tribunal no dispute regarding the payment of duty has been raised. The appeals are only directed against imposition of penalty.4. Therefore, the orders on these appeal shall be confined only in respect of penalty and the duty levied shall remain undisturbed. It has been pleaded that, the duty has been paid much before the issue of show cause notice. Hence penalty should not have been imposed. It is also claimed that, the short levy relates to the period form 6.4.96 to 25.5.96 and the p...

C.M. Textile and Ramesh JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT132Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for stay of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai and the appeals were filed by the above appellants.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner redetermined the value of the imported goods, confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,57,097.80 on the excess quantity found in the consignment, confiscated the excess quantity of 80378.85 1 mtrs. under Section 111(d), 111(m) and 11(I) of the Customs Act imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 125 and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. C.M. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and another Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Ramesh Jain, director of the said company.3. The case arose out of a DRI investigation where it was found, that the appellants filed a bill of entry No. 6595 dated 17.8.1998 seeking duty free clearances of 570 rolls admeasuring 18487.62 sq. mtrs. of polyester crepe grey fabrics of 44" width and 287 rolls admeasuring 50319.72 sq. mtrs. of polyester crepe fabrics of 58" width. The appellants claimed duty f...