Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai, who has inter alia confirmed:- [d] Imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. [e] Imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the Executive officer of the assessee company.2. The demands of Central Excise and Customs duty have been confirmed on the ground that the company was not entitled to the benefit of exemption from Central Excise duty in terms of Notification 1/95-CE and not entitled to exemption in terms of Customs Notification No.53/97-Cus. for Furnace Oil for which the benefit was claimed, as it was not consumable covered by the schedule to the notification and furnace oil when used it boilers, was not eligible to be procured ;duty free by 100% EOU units other than textile units prior to 21.5.2000.3. We have heard both sides. We find that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out by the applicants. In view...

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai

1.Appellants have been denied capital goods eligibility under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to : (i)Rewinding machine combined with inkjet jet printing machine MC. Rs. 75,150/- on the ground by Additional Commissioner that manufacturer of soap, the final product, was complete without printing as printing is not required for making the product marketable. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the impugned machine is used for printing done on wrappers before manufacturing process and the printing had no connection with processing or production of goods, he upheld the denial of credit eligibility. (a)The impugned inkjet is used for printing specific details such as date of packing, price, etc. on soap wrapper with the help of rewinding machine. These details are required to be marked on the wrappers under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and provisions of Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 as a mandatory requirement and soap cannot be sold/marketed without this re...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Om Textile

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT327Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard the ld. DR. The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who through his impugned order remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to determine as to who the manufacturer is and then confirm duty against that person. The goods have been seized from the trader, who is obviously not the manufacturer. The Revenue appeal relying on the judgment of Bajrang Gopilal v. M.N. Balbhadari - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) claims that the trader be held liable for duty in case sale purchase transactions are not genuine. I note that the said case relates to the arrangement of manufacture of cloth, through job work arrangement by the yarn supplier, wherein it was held that the yarn supplier was the manufacturer, I am unable to accept the proposition that a person from whose possession goods are seized can be liable to duty in the absence of any evidence to show that there existed the arrangement as mentioned in the case referred to above. Since ...

K.M.C. Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 25,11,871/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, as a result of denial of exemption in terms of Notification No. 23/98-Cus dated 2.6.1998 wherein the claim was made in terms of serial No. 4 of the list 28 which covers "Surface Dressing Equipment (self-propelled) (Chips Spreader)". The benefit has been denied on the ground that the goods in question imported by the applicants herein are Motor Grader, which are not Surface Dressing Equipment.2. It is the contention of the applicants that the demand is barred by limitation as they described the goods correctly and fully in the Bill of Entry. As per the description in the invoice and claim to the benefit at serial No. 4 in list 28 to the notification cannot by itself amount to suppression so as to make the extended period applicable against the importers. They rely upon the apex court judgment in the case of Northern Plastic L...

Cce Vs. Boc (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC763Tri(Mum.)bai

1. BOC (India) Ltd. was engaged in the compressing and filling in cylinders medical and industrial grade oxygen and argon. The process was being treated as one of manufacture. The assessee paid duty on the cylinders that it filled with liquefied gas and utilised as credit duty paid on the gases that it received. Notice issued to it proposed to recover credit taken on quantities of these gases which escaped into the atmosphere during the process of filling in the cylinder on the ground that the goods were not used in the manufacture of the final product. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the liability to reversal of the credit and imposed penalty on the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal against this order on his view that the escaped gases were in the nature of waste and hence to be covered by the provisions of Rule 57D. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The Commissioner Appeals) has relied upon the unreported decision of the Tribunal, holding in the case of...

Mustan Teherbhai Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By final Order No. C.I/403/WZB/2003 dated 18/2/03, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' appeal against the order of the Commissioned Appeals) who had confirmed the provisional Assessment Order of the Supdt. by which the appellants were charged with duty of Rs. 75,89,375/-(basic duty + additional duty of Customs), on the vessel "M.V. Jagat Priya" built by M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.in 1975 and purchased by the appellants on a public auction in Mumbai for the purpose of breaking up. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Revenue that Notification No. 118/87/Cus under which the vessel was claimed to have been cleared by M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. was not in existence on the date of clearance, having been superceded by Notification No. l63/65-Cus which exempted any ocean going vessel in accordance with Section 65 of the Customs Act from payment of duty on clearance from warehouse but also provided that Customs duty shall he leved on vessel if it is broken up as if it were then...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Procter and Gamble (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessee took on 9-10-1996 credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid by its manufacturer on 28-6-1996 on vapour absorption heat pump.Notice issued to the assessee proposed denial of the credit on the ground that the goods being classifiable in Heading 84.18 were specifically excluded from consideration as capital goods under the explanation below 57Q(1). The Asstt. Commissioner denied the credit on this ground. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit on two grounds that they were included in the definition of capital goods and they have been used in the manufacture of the finished product. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. Rule 57Q as it stood on the date on which credit was taken defined capital goods in explanation below Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q. Clause (a) paragraph 1 of the definition of the explanation specified all goods falling under Heading Chapter 84 other than those specifically excluded in that clause to be capital goods. Among th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mayur Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT200Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Adjudicating on a notice issued to Hico Products Ltd., the Assistant Commissioner denied the credit taken by it of the duty shown to have been paid on an invoice issued by Mayur Chemicals, a registered dealer of the goods on the ground that it did not have facility to receive, store and despatch the goods. Hico Products Ltd., did not appeal this order. An appeal was however filed by Mayur Chemicals. The Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The departmental representative raises a ground not contained in the appeal, that Mayur Chemicals has no locus standi to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) since it has not been legally aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. 3. In the judgment that the departmental representative cites, the Supreme Court, after considering the earlier judgments on the question, as t...

Cosmic Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 11,34,37,544/- and penalty of Rs. 3 crores imposed upon the appellants herein and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, as the main grievance of the appellants is that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the order has been passed ex-parte.2. The issue in dispute is as to whether the appellants exported their final product namely processed man made fabrics. The duty demand is on the finished product on the ground that the appellants failed to produce proof of export.3. On hearing both sides we find that several opportunities of hearings were extended to the appellants. However ground given by them for seeking adjournment on the last date 9.7.03 was that the brother of the Advocate was to undergo surgery. We also note that the request sent by the appellants was received by the office of Commissioner only after the date of the impugned order. ...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Dcit, Spl Range-2

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92ITD111(Mum.)

1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 1st December 1997 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of ascertainment of withholding tax liability under section 195 of the Income Tax Act.2. The only question requiring our adjudication in this appeal is whether, in the case of a successful appeal under section 248 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (i.e. a person denying his liability to deduct the tax at source under section 195 or under section 200), an appellate authority can direct that the tax already deposited by such an appellant be refunded to that appellant. Revenue's objection is that since, under the scheme of section 198 and 199 of the Act, tax deduction is to be considered as income of the person from whose income the tax is so deducted and since on the tax being so deposited by the person denying his liability to deduct tax at source, the same is to be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction is made and credi...