Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Venkateshwara Re-rolling

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT342Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard the D.R. Respondents have requested to decide the issue based on their written submissions.2. The dispute relates to availment of benefit of deemed Modvat credit by small scale units availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.93. From the records of the case one can gather that vide Ministry's letter F.No. TS/35/94-TRU dated 1.3.94, units availing small scale exemption were permitted to take credit in respect of specific inputs without producing duty paying at the rates specified therein. It appears that, upto the value limit of Rs. 75 Lakhs , the appellants were paying concessional duty and they were availing the benefit of taking deemed credit without production of duty paying documents. Only after crossing the limit of Rs. 75 Lakhs, the continuation of taking credit in the aforesaid manner is being objected, drawing support to such objection from the Ministry's aforesaid letter dated 1.3.94.3. Despite several opportunities granted to the D.R., he was unab...

Ghodavat Pan Masala Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue relates to clandestine removal of Pan Masala "Star Gutkha".2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 is the manufacturer of Gutkha under the brand name of "Star Gutkha Pan Masala" falling under Sub Heading No. 2106.00 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period involved is from 1993 - 94 to 15.11.1996. They have Sales Depot at Flat No. 7, Mithila Apartment, 186, Guruwar Peth, Tilakwadi, Belgaum, Karnataka State. Besides, they have their premises at Plot No. 438; A/P Chipri, Via. Jaisingpur, Tal.Shirol, Dist Kolhapur. On the basis of intelligence report, the premises of the appellant No. 1 vis-a-vis dealers were searched on 15/16 November 1996. It is alleged that during the search operation various incriminating documents were seized. The statements of the key officials of the appellant No. 1 vis-avis dealers were recorded. The appellant No. 1 is selling its products viz. "Star Gutkha" presently in Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka. T...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Savrinbhai B. Shah

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT559Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the setting aside an order of confiscation of ball bearings of foreign origin from a Traders' premises who deals in such goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) findings are - "5. I have carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions made by the appellants in their memorandum of appeal as well as during the course of personal hearing. The goods under dispute are ball bearings of foreign origin which the appellant claims to have purchased from local markets at Mumbai, Madras and Calcutta. The department has proceeded to confiscate the goods on the sole ground that at the time of initial recording of statement under Section 108 the partner of the firm could not produce the purchase bills/vouchers to show payment of duty. The undisputed fact in regard to this case is that the goods which have been seized are not the notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and are not covered under Chapter IV A, also that the owner of these goods s...

Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. Blue Chip Impex P. Ltd., Exyon

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT335Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals have been filed by Revenue against the clearance of Gum Rosin imported on licences mentioning the item permissible as 'Binding Material - Gum' on the grounds - i) Dy. CC has reported the Gum Rosin is used as a tackifier in adhesives. ii) Dr. Deodhar of IIT had opined on 04.11.1996 that Gum Rosin cannot be construed to be used as binding material for book binding or manufacture of Books and this referred to earlier certificates issued by him. iii) DGFT letter dt. 17.09.1997 stipulating no objection in permitting import of Gum Rosin against 'Binding Material - Gum' is not based on technical authority/book and it gives no reasons. a) The Commissioner has logically arrived at the eligibility for imports under the said licences. That cannot be faulted with. The grounds, as taken, especially when Commissioner, to arrive at eligibility, has relied on - (i) I.I.T. certificates and rejected subsequent (dt 04.11.1996) interpretations of Prof. Deodhar being not based on any tech...

Shri Chhel Bihari Maheswari, Mach Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. Naresh Thacker, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants interalia contended that the demand is time barred and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A as the applicants have been supplying old and used MS pipes; that the appellant was not taking any manufacturing activity; that the main appellant had filed declarations every year showing that they were doing job work and the said declarations were accepted by the department and the same were not reviewed by the department; that the appellant have not violated the provisions of Rules and the Act; demand of penalty cannot be sustained legally; that the Ld. Counsel relied on in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in 2002 (101) ECR 53 (Tri.) and Harish Dyeing and Printing Works as reported in 2001 (138) ELT 772 (Tri.); that the applicant has acted bonafidely; that their financial condition is very weak as their assets have also been sold off by the bank; that...

Jyoti Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT176Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants look credit of Rs. 13,874.88 on the impugned goods on 20-7-1995. However, the credit taken was not the correct amount as the said amount represented sales lax whereas the excise duty amount was Rs. 57,812/-. The appellants claim that this was a clerical mistake which was corrected by taking supplementary credit on 12-1-1996. The concerned Superintendent issued a direction for reversing this supplementary credit amount but on appeal his order was set aside and de novo adjudication was ordered by Commissioner (Appeals). On such de novo consideration, the original authority dropped the demand on the ground that the demand was not issued within six months of taking the supplementary credit. On Department's appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the time limits under Rule 57-I and Section 11A will not apply to such ease and that the demand can be raised within six months from the date of order-in-appeal.2. After hearing both sides and perusal o...

Samir T. Thakkar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT173Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The impugned order has been passed by Commissioner (Appeals) stating inter alia as follows :- "However, as Shri Samir T. Thakkar, Partner of the appellant-company has not filed separate appeal under Section 35, I refrain from passing any order against the personal penalty imposed under Rule 209A of CER, 1944 & Rule 26 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001." It is the case of the appellant that he is Partner of M/s. Jaishil Sulphur & Chemical Industries and that he had replied to the Show Cause Notice jointly along with the said firm and had also similarly filed a joint appeal/stay application with the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant further states that the issue of not filing appeal/stay application separately was not raised at the time of accepting the appeal or at the time of personal hearing. As such, the appellant states that the impugned order has been passed as a result of misconception by the Commissioner (Appeals) and further states that ther...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kriplon Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is revenue's appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of processed textile fabrics. They were operating under the compounded levy scheme under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules. They failed to discharge the monthly duty liability on due dates for the months of September 1999 February 2000 to May 2000. The delay was ranging from 1 to 4 days. While the cumulative interest lost on account of delayed payment was Rs. 2794/-, the adjudicating authority invoked the provisions of Rule 96ZO (5)(ii) and imposed penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding from the respondent at the end of the month or Rs. 5000/- whichever is greater.2. On respondent's appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty of Rs. 5000/- each in the case of delays which occurred during the month of September 199, February 2000, March 2000 and May 2000.However, in the month of April 2000, he held that ...

Uma Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce and C

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(114)LC472Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals are directed against order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat dated 29.8.1997. Under the above order the Commissioner has confirmed duty demand against M/s.Uma Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as UEPL) to the extent of Rs. 44,55,116. He directed confiscation of land and plant belonging to UEPL under Rule 173Q(2)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 20 Lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs was also imposed on UEPL. Appeal E/2638/98 which is the main appeal is at the instance of M/s. UEPL. The Commissioner had imposed penalty at the rate of Rs. 10 Lakhs on M/s. Uma Engineering Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Auto Looms India, M/s. Keyur Engg. Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Gayatri Engg.Works, M/s. New Auto Looms India Pvt. Ltd. Appeal Nos. E/2648/98, 2644/98, 2642/98, 2640/98 and 2646/98 are respectively at the instance of the above-mentioned parties. The Commissioner had imposed penalty at the rate of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Shri ...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Swastik Dyeing and Bleaching

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT491Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue are allowed, condoning the delay occasioned in filing the above appeals, as the Revenue had initially filed consolidated/combined appeals against different groups of textile processing units for the reason that the adjudicating authority had held each group to constitute a single manufacturing unit, and independent appeals have now been filed by bifurcating those combined appeals, as per the procedure laid down by the Tribunal.3. The above appeals arise out of a common order of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune and arc hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. Several groups of textile processing units have been treated as single manufacturing units for the purpose of denial of the benefit of exemption under certain Central Excise notifications. The groups units are enumerated below: As almost similar facts are involved in the case of all these groups, we are setting out the facts arising out of group No. IX a...