Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

N.R.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT376Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Common order is passed since the issues in appeals is common. The issue in this case is the denial of modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q and penalty imposed on the appellants.2. The appellants have produced a chart showing the capital goods/inputs use and also the case law which are directly covering the items under dispute as well as having persuasive value. This leads to a conclusion that the credit should be eligible.3. On the perusal of this chart and the DR concurring it is to be held that credit on all items is given in the chart below:NRC LTD vs CCE MODVAT [SIC](SrNo25) PENALTY RS.7,100/-PERIOD APRIL 95 Used for holding the copper place in Anode Assembly for power supply in Caustic Soda production 1999(114)ELT 347 (T) 2003 (54) RLT 801 (T) 2000 (116) ELT 528 (T) 2002 (147) ELT 570 (T) - VINDHYA TELE LINKS - STEEL AUTHORITY OF - VINDHYA TELELINKS - D.S.M.SUGAR MILLS Attached to Cells used in the causticSOda manufactured- Parts of Circuit Breaker PVC CB 500, PVT 600...

Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs has confirmed against the appellants a demand of duty of over Rs. 6 crores and has imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. This order is based on a finding that the appellants had taken the double benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A and duty-free import of raw materials under a Value Based Advance Licence. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is that, though the appellants had declared that they had not obtained input stage credit under Rule 56 A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the materials utilized by them for discharging export obligation under the said licence, they had not furnished proof of non-availment of such credit. Yet another finding recorded by the Commissioner is that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had not clarified as to whether the reversal of Modvat credit by the party was in terms of the Ministry's Circular No. 285/1/97/CX dt. 10.1.97. In the present application, waiver of predepos...

Ramesh Daji Jadhav Vs. National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR732; 2004(1)BomCR4

Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the Industrial Court, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant under Item 9 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For Short, hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU & PUPL Act') on the ground that the relief claimed by the appellant could not be granted as the company was declared a sick unit and consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') had not been obtained.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:The appellant was working in the Grey Winding department of Kohinoor Mill since 1979. On 18.1.1982, a strike was declared in the textile industry. The appellant was not assigned any work although he reported for duty during the strike period. The appellant, therefore, filed an application before the Labour Court under S...

Beettee Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT390Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared for the appellants. I have heard Shri A.K. Saxena, learned J.D.R. for the department and perused the case records. On appeal, the Tribunal had set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants and subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the penalty amount as well as for interest on the same. The lower authorities have allowed the refund of the penalty amount but have rejected the claim of interest on the same. Since there are no statutory provision for granting interest on refund of penalty amount nor is there any specific order of the Tribunal to grant such interest while deciding the appeal earlier, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the lower authorities is correct in law. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected....

Bhagwandas Bherumal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC211

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to importation in 1996 of garlic. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that it was not freely importable and required a licence for its importation.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. A letter has been received from Mr C.T. Krishnamurty, who says that he is the advocate for the appellant, seeking adjournment on the ground that he has to be out of the country. The matter has been adjourned three times earlier at the request of the appellant's counsel, and considering that this is an appeal of 1997, we do not think any further adjournment is justified and therefore decline to grant adjournment. Having read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and having heard the departmental representative, we proceed to decide the issue.3. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals), in her order, is that garlic directly satisfies the hu...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pragati Glass Works Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware.In the price list that it filed for this product it claimed deduction from the assessee of the cost of so much of the packing as has been supplied free to its customer with the product. Notice issued to the assessee proposed to deny this deduction on the ground that evidence of free supply of such packing had not been produced. The proceedings finally resulted in the order passed on 18.2.1994 by the Commissioner (Appeals). In that order, the Commissioner said that the assessee was entitled, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Polyware v. CCE 1989 (43) ELT 165 to deduction of the cost of so much of the packing that was supplied free by the assessee. He did not accept the contention of the assessee that the cost of packing is not incurred by it and is not required to furnish material to show packing had been received free of cost by the buyers and directed the Asst.Commissioner to verify informat...

Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT352Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of mining machinery such as loader and their parts. It had classified various parts as such air motor, transmission shafts, fasteners, gear box etc. which were components parts of such machinery under various heading. It is claimed that the classification was approved. Subsequently notice was issued demanding duty on the ground that the goods had been incorrectly classified. The notice proposed to classify these goods not under the various headings of the tariff that was earlier been claimed but in heading 84.13 as parts of loading and unloading machinery. The Asst. Commissioner whose order has been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the proposed in the notice. Hence this appeal.3. In the appeal, the appellant had furnished reasons in support of the contention that the parts had been correctly classified. It had said that fastener such as scre...

Nandlal Kishandas Khemani Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants had imported certain consignments of HDPE free of duty under the DEEC scheme, but they did not comply with the substantive condition under the relevant notification (No. 203/92-Cus.dated 19.5.1992). The said condition was that they had to discharge export obligation in respect of the imported raw materials. The appellants were merchant exporters with no manufacturing facility. They produced a certificate, which was represented to be one issued by M/s.Chetna Plastic Industries claiming to be their supporting manufacturer in respect of the export product. The department found this certificate to be a bogus document on the basis of a statement recorded from M/s.Chetna Plastic Industries. Again they found that the export obligation had not even attempted to be discharged. The Chartered Accountant's certificate showing past exports, produced by the appellants, was also found to be fictitious on the basis of a statement recorded from the Chartered Accountant. It, was on th...

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Tristar Consultants

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91ITD15(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the Revenue, for the assessment year 95-96, is directed against the order, of the CIT (A), Mumbai, dated 23.2.1998. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction Under Section 80-O of the Act, 1961".3. The bone of contention between the parties is the alleged services provided by the assessee. As per the assessee, these services comprise 'technical or professional services' within the meaning of Section 80-O of the act, 1961. the Revenue, on the other hand, denies this claim.Its stand is that the services of the assessee are no different from those of any other commonplace employment or recruitment bureau/ establishment and that as such, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction Under Section 80-O which has been wrongly allowed by the learned CIT (A).4) The nature of the services provided by the assessee was explained to the taxing authorities. Written submissions were filed...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Novelty Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT541Tri(Mum.)bai

1. A consignment of Velcro Tapes was intercepted and seized. The respondents explained the same to be imported by one M/s. Murugan Export Agencies who had sold part of it to M/s. Brilliant Traders who in turn had sold it to the respondents and because M/s. Brilliant Traders now could not be located, they are not responsible. They produced documents from M/s. Murugan Exports of sale of part of consignment imported by them to M/s. Brilliant Traders and a copy of the import Bill of Entry and invoices of M/s. Brilliant Traders.2. a) The lower authorities found that goods could not be correlated with the documents, they were illegally imported and confiscated and same under the provision of Section 111(d) and allowed on a redemption fine with penalty of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 112(b).b) Commissioner (Appeals), holding that suspicion, however great cannot shift burden of proof and merely because goods are in the negative list would not lead to a conclusion of them being smuggled without a...