Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Asia Woven Sacks Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT349Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common issue raised in these appeals is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have the power to remand cases to the original adjudicating authority after legislative changes made in the Customs and Excise laws by the Finance Act, 2001. For the reasoning given in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Tex Chem Corporation and Ors. - Order No.CIV/719 to 722/01 dated 4-10-2003 [2003 (157) E.L.T. 715 (Tri. - Mum.)], we follow the ratio of the Apex Court decision in the case of UOI v. Umesh Dhaimode - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 584 (S.C.) and hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have the power of remand even after the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2001. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals along with the stay applications filed by the department....

Mayur Value Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT620Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard both sides and perused the case records, Shri S.R.Patanakar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are not claiming exemption under Notification No. 217/86 but under Notification No. 1/93. He further submits that the impugned goods, classifiable under Heading 84.81, are eligible for exemption under the said Notification No. 1/93 and since these have been consumed as inputs within the appellants' factory for further manufacture of finished goods, their value of clearance is also required to be excluded under Explanation VI to the said Notification No. 1/93. We find force in the contention of the appellants and their claim to exemption under Notification 1/93 requires to be examined independent of the Notification No. 217/86. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo decision after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.2. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The order of remand w...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT118Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Each of the respondents to these appeals was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, part of which it cleared without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 217/86 to another factory owned by it, in which such goods were used in the manufacture of excisable goods which were cleared on payment of duty. The assessees had availed of the Modvat credit facility and taken credit of the duty paid on inputs, used in the manufacture of goods which were cleared to the other factory for further utilisation therein. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether they were required to reverse the Modvat credit of this inputs as were cleared from the factory without payment of duty. In the two orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1994 (69) E.L.T. 122 held that there was no such requirement and allowed their appeals against the order of the adjudicating authority denying credit....

Metal Tubes and Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT658Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 1,03,826/- confirmed on Copper Wire Bar failing under chapter 74 of CETA, 1985 cleared during the period 18.7.2000 to 1.6.2001 by including 15% notional profit in the assessable value of the goods, and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the assessee, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving the predeposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants had added 10% notional profit to their cost of production to arrive at the assessable value of their goods. According to the department, as per provisions of Section 4(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000, and in the case of job work, it was accepted by the department and various trade associations of Textile Industries to add 15% notional profit was required to...

Cello Plastotech Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT76Tri(Mum.)bai

1.- Heard both sides. The issue involves classification of the impugned goods which the appellants claim to be household articles of plastic classifiable under sub-heading 3924.90 whereas the Department claims the same to be classifiable as furniture under sub-heading 9403.00.2. After hearing both sides at great length and perusal of related tariff entries and Explanatory Note to the HSN, we are of the opinion that the impugned goods are rightly classifiable as household articles of plastics under subheading No. 3924.90 as claimed by the appellants.As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.3. Our order allowing the appeal was pronounced in Court on the date of hearing on 28-11-2002....

Eurotex Industries and Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 3,93,686/-arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute relates to interpretations of the expression "customs duty leviable" occurring in para 5(a) of the Notification No. 53/97 Cus dt. 3.6.97. Under this provision capital goods can be cleared into the DTA on payment of an amount equal to the customs duty leviable on such goods on depreciated value thereof, and if this is done, there is an exemption from the payment of whole of the duty customs leviable under the first schedule to the CTA, 1975 and additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the CTA 1975. It is the contention of the department that the applicants are required to pay the basic Customs duty, Special Customs duty and CVD, going by the charging section and the opening paragraph of the notification. On the other hand the applicants submits that the expression 'customs duty' occurring in para 5(a) is to be interpreted as being confined to basic customs ...

Miltech Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 38,73,724/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. The duty amount of Rs. 38,73,724/- representing 16% Special Excise Duty stands paid prior to the issue of the show cause notice.2. The demand in the present case on arms and ammunition arises out of the liability to pay as per the tariff, which the applicants have contested on the ground that in the Finance Minister's Budget Speech for the year 2001-2002 he had stated that 16% Special Excise Duty (SED) would be levied only if the arms and ammunition were cleared for private use. It is the contention of the applicants that since they were clearing parts and accessories of arms and ammunition only to Ordnance Factories which is for defence use and not for private use and they bonafide believed that they were not required to pay SED and were required to pay only basic excise duty.4. We have carefully perused the impugned order and particularly p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT421Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal No. E/2206/97 has been filed by the Department against order-in-appeal No. GS/167/B-III/07 dtd. 24-6-1997. In the said order-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-examine the refund claim and consider the same if otherwise admissible. It is seen that the said order has been implemented by the Assistant Commissioner and he has rejected the refund claim amounting to Rs. 23,98,052/- by his order dtd. 27-10-1997.On subsequent appeal, the successor Commissioner (Appeals), has upheld the rejection in his order dtd. 12-3-1999 and hence M/s. Cipla Ltd. have filed Appeal No. E/2152/99 before us.2. We have heard both sides on both appeals. It is the case of the appellants M/s. Cipla Ltd. that the impugned goods were once cleared on payment of duty and then returned. These were defoiled and then refoiled and again cleared on payment of duty. Their claim is for refund of the duty which has been paid twice. They contend that the activity unde...

Allied Dyes and Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT500Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By the order, which is the subject matter of this application, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure to deposit Rs. 3 lakh subject to the condition that the assessee deposit Rs. 4 lakhs within a month from the receipt of its order. The Tribunal recorded a prima facie view that the dealer who issued the invoices on the basis of which modvat credit was taken by the appellant before the Tribunal had not been registered at that time. The invoices were issued. The invoices were issued in July and August 1994 and the Tribunal come to its conclusion, after considering a certificate dated 15.3.1995 issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise granting registration to the dealer.The applicant now contends that the dealer had been registered in July 1994 and the document that was cited before the Tribunal was only a renewal of that registration.2. While replying to this point, the Joint Chief Departmental ...

Rini Engineers Vs. the Ratnakar Bank

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC108

1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 23.10.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune in Original Application No. 567-P/2001. The learned Presiding Officer by the impugned judgment and Order directed issuance of recovery certificate in favour of the applicant Bank for recovery of Rs. 18,75,511.21 together with interest at the rate of 22% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the suit i.e. 22.3.1995 till realization of the amount and the costs of the application from the opponents. He also gave certain consequential declarations. He also dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellant company and being aggrieved the present appeal is filed and what is being heard today is an application for waiver of deposit of 75% of the amount determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereina...