Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

S.S. Sachdev, V.R. Kantak, M.V. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT531Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on Shri M.V. Joshi, Rs.20,000/- each imposed on Shri M.K.Tikone and Shri V.R. Kantak and Rs.l lakh on Shri S.S. Sachdev, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Pune. The case of the department is that of fraudulent clam of DEPB by export of old and used machinery parts (scrap) by misdeclaration of the goods as various engineering goods. As regards the penalties, they have been imposed on the ground that the applicants aided and abetted the company, M/s.Stanley Industries (I) Ltd., in the wrong claim for DEPB, 2. We have heard both sides. We find that as regards Shri M.V. Joshi who is the director of M/s. Stanley Industries (I) Ltd., Shri M.K.Tikone who is the stores in-charge and assistant manager and Shri V.R.Kantak who is the production manager, their knowledge that old and used machinery parts were being misdeclared as engineering goods for the purpose of fraudulent claim for DEPB is br...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dhanlaxmi Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC271

1. Revenue is aggrieved on grant of credit on paper tube used by a texturiser, to wind the yarn when duty on yarn is paid on tariff value fixed under Section 3(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the grounds - (i) Cost of paper tubes not included in the value of final product. Tariff value does not include the value of inputs. Therefore, credit on 'Antistatic Oil' and 'Paper Tube' is not eligible. (ii) Explanation (iii) to Rule 57A would exclude the packing material from eligibility as inputs since duties are not paid on assessable value as per Section. a) Tariff value under Section 3(2) as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Century Manufacturing Co. Ltd. {1992 (60) ELT 3 SC} are to be fixed by the Central Government after taking into account all relevant factors. There is no material on record produced by Revenue to conclude that the cast of the impugned inputs have not been reckoned while fixing the tariff values. Since Revenue wants to deny the credit on that basis the onus...

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Harish Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC838Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals), Mumbai. The specific issue involved is whether are not solar coach lights imported by the respondent are consumer goods. If the answer is yes they fall within the mischief of restricted goods in the exim policy 92-97. Any importer of such goods needs an import licence. The respondent imported the said goods under OGL, the Addl. Commissioner of Customs held them to be of "restricted goods", confiscated them, imposed a fine of Rs. 80,000/- and penalty duty Rs. 10,000/-. the importer filed an appeal against that order, the Commissioner(Appeals) held that the goods are covered under OGL and set aside the fine and penalty. The Department came in appeal against the order.2. The main contention of the Department is that the goods are covered under ITC (MS) 94.05 and therefore require a licence to import. The contention of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in holding that the lamps under import are eq...

Organo Chemical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.7,23,975/-, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal, with consent of both sides.2. The penalty has been imposed on the ground of contravention of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules, as the appellants had passed on modvat credit on the strength of original/xerox copies of purchase invoice and further they had passed on modvat credit on the strength of letterheads of supplier/manufacturer.3. We find that in the initial proceedings, there was an order of the Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs against which the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide his order No. SDK 12(0143)/M-1/2000 dated 31.7.2000, sent back the matter to the adjudicating authority to conduct enquiry and arrive at a conclusion on the issue as...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ganesh Agro Steel Industries and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in the present appeals filed by the Revenue against a common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, is the admissibility of deemed credit under Ministry of Finance's Order No. TS/36/94-TRU dated 1.3.1994 even after crossing of the ceiling limit of Rs. 75 lakhs in terms of notification 1/93 relating to small scale units, by the respondents herein who are manufacturers of mild steel CTD bars/M.S. round bars etc., although their specific clearances were within the limit of Rs. 2 crores.2. The respondents' counsel has sought for an adjournment of the appeals against M/s. Ganesh Agro Steel Industries, M/s, Shiva Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Ajanta Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.; however we find that the issue is covered by a larger bench decision and hence we do not consider it necessary to grant adjournment.3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal's order in the case of CCE, vs. Venkateshwara Steel Industries 1996 (8...

Greenways Shipping Agencies Pvt. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals arising from the same order are being disposed off by this order.2. M/s. Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., as Steamer Agents applied, for an additional excise duty in IGM No. 2226 dated 15/07/99 since the goods were not manifested earlier in the IGM filed. An application under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1962 was made, since the goods had been unloaded. They appeared for a hearing after waiver of show cause notice. The plea of computer error in programme module was rejected. The IGM was filed on behalf of M/s. Greenways Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd., for goods not manifested alleged to be liable for confiscation under Section 111 (f) & (g) as - "Since the Steamer Agent had accepted the commission on their part, the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (f) and (g) of Customs Act, 1962. However, as the Steamer Agent is not the owner of the goods, I refrain from confiscating the cargo. However, I impose a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees thr...

West Coast Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT94Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellants case for availment of credit under Rule 57H (1)(b) was disallowed by the authorities below. Briefly stated, the facts are that, with effect from dated 1.3.1994 Central Excise duty has been imposed on diesel engines. The appellants sent intimation to the concerned Assistant Commissioner, intending to take credit of Rs. 153292/- in respect of stock of inputs lying in their factory on that date. After waiting for several months, the appellants took credit on 2.1.95, in the absence of adverse communication from the department.However, the department issued a show-cause notice proposing recovery of the credit taken for reason that necessary permission under Rule 57H was not taken from the Assistant Commissioner. The demand was confirmed against the appellants in a de novo proceedings on the ground that inputs have already been used up in the manufacture of the final products and the said final product has been cleared by the appellants, thereby the verification of the sto...

Maxim Medicaments P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC200

2. The dispute relates to modvat credit of Rs. 75,673.50 covering four invoices. The invoices pertain to the period from 20.4.94 to 17.5.94.The inputs have been delivered directly from the original manufacturer's premises to the appellant's manufacturing premises and modvat credit is taken in respect of the inputs used in the appellants premises. The invoices were issued in the name of M/s. IPCA Laboratories at the same address and M/s. IPCA Laboratories endorsed the same, stating that the entire goods were given to the appellants.The objection of the Department is that, the invoices were not in the name of the appellants, and these having been endorsed after 1.4.94, such endorsed gate passes or invoices were not authorized documents for taking modvat.3. It is pleaded that, though from 1.4.94 the endorsement procedure was not authorized, the gate passes were continued to be issued by the supplier. Relying on the Tribunal's judgments reported in 2001 (237) ELT 426 (Tri. Calcutta) in th...

Sarvodaya Lab, K.B. Rathi, R.A. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Non-Appeared for the appellants despite notice and adjournments granted ealier. Heard Shri U.B. Khalwadekar, learned D.R. The Revenue.This is a case which involves import of goods under DEEC Scheme and sale of the same is in the market in contravention of the conditions in the Exam Policy and relevant customs notification instead of using the same for export purposes. As such, on Merits, the appellants have no case and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) requires no interference.2. The appellants have also challenged the jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner on the ground that the impugned goods were duly manifested and relevant bills of entires were assessee by the officers working with the Commissioner of Customs (Export) and hence the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had no jurisdiction in the matter. We have carefully considered the issue of the jurisdiction raised by the appellants. We find that under the relevant Notification No. ...

Dy. Cit, Special Range 18 Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)88ITD273(Mum.)

1. The following question has been referred to the Special Bench by the Hon'ble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for decision :- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessee-company is justified in its claim that the Sales Tax incentive allowed to it during the previous year in terms of the relevant Government Order constitutes capital receipt and is not to be taken into account in computation of total income.'' 2. The question came to be referred to the Special Bench in the following circumstances. One of the grounds of appeal in the appeal filed by the asessee in ITA No. 3890/Bom/91 for the assessment year 1986-87 is that the CIT(A) erred in "not directing the learned Dy CIT to consider the appellant's claim for an amount of Rs 17, 70, 40, 220 being the amount exempted from payment to the Government of Maharashtra as part of subsidy quantified for setting up a new Industrial Unit in the Specified Backward Area, being Patalganga at Raig...