Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Bidhata Industries, P.K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Bidhata Industries, the assessee, processed fabric that it received on payment. Notice issued to it and its employees proposed denial of deemed credit that it took on the ground that the fabric that it received had already been subjected to processing and hence excluded in terms of notification 29/96. The notice relied upon statements of various employees of Raymond Ltd. to say that the fabric had already been subjected to processed solvent scouring. The notice also alleged that the appellant had not included in the cost of processing, the amounts incurred on account of double decatizing. Penalty was proposed on this count. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal against this order for failure by the assessee to deposit the entire duty and penalty and by its employees to deposit the penalty.3. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that the process of solvent scouring tat was unde...

Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT725Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants, M/s. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd., are manufactures, among other goods, of man-made fabrics from Viscose Rayon Yarn obtained from outside on payment of duty. They are also manufacturing Square Woven Fabrics and return such fabrics to the parties. The fabrics are not subjected to any process. They are claimed to be falling under Chapter Heading No. 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (earlier Tariff Item No. 22), They filed a classification list dated 3-9-1986 and started paying duty under Heading 5902.30 under protest as per the earlier approved classification list since they could not abate the approval of revised lists. The Assistant Collector, vide his Order dated 23-7-1986 held that the goods covered under classification list dated 3-5-86 correctly fall under Heading 5902.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as Tyre Cord Fabrics of Viscose Rayon and additional duty was payable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 at ...

Suresh Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant No. 1, i.e. M/s. Suresh Synthetics are a 100% EOU.They have been clearing goods manufactured in the EOU under the provisions of Para 9.10(b) of the EXIM Policy during the period July-August, 2000. They have appealed against the demand of duty of excise under Section 3 read with Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appellant No. 2 is Director of appellant No. 1 on whom penalty under Rule 209A has been imposed, in the same common order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. M/s. Honest Agency, appellant No. 3, is the purchaser of goods from appellant No. 1 on whom a penalty has been imposed under Rule 209A.2. After hearing the stay applications it transpires that final orders could be passed in these appeals and the matter disposed off, since the issue lies in a very small compass. After waiving pre-deposit and with the consent of both sides this order is being passed. (a) The s...

Baroda Rayon Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC27Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants received capital goods under cover of a gate pass dated 25-3-94. Credit was taken by them in September, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in terms of Notification No. 16/94 C.E (NT.), credit received on goods covered under the gate pass could be taken only up to 30-6-94. The credit having been taken thereafter was invalid. Me did not accept the claim that the assessee could not take the credit until the verification was done for which the departmental officer took a long time. Shri Desai makes this as the main point of his argument.2. Rule 57Q prescribed, the intimation to be given about the receipt of the capital goods before the same were installed. This was to enable the officer to verify the goods with the documents. The declaration was filed on 9-5-94. On 24-5-94, the Superintendent was requested to verify the goods. One more letter was written on 13-6-94 quoting the amended Rule 57G(2) and requesting the Superintendent to conduct the verification. It a...

Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT828Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufacturers various Tungsten Carbide products liable to excise duty under Chapters 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Central Excise Tariff in its factory. They availed Modvat credit under Rule 57A on certain inputs.2. A show-cause notice dated 8-2-1996 was issued in which the following charges were levelled against the Company. (a) Certain inputs on which Modvat credit was availed was removed from the factory premises without payment of duty during the period July, 1992 to August 1995 contravening the provisions of Rule 9, 57F(1) and 57G. It was alleged that the appellant had wilfully suppressed this fact of removal and therefore, the appellant was asked to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 6,01,618 already paid by the appellant voluntarily in August/September, 1995 be not confirmed, under the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Rules read with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. (b) Certain inputs valued at Rs. 9,14,617/- were removed by the ...

Hbl Nife Power System Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for implementation of the Tribunal's order passed on 14.3.2001 allowing the assessee's appeal with consequential relief.2. The application contends that despite numerous reminders, refund of the deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs made by the applicant in pursuance of the Tribunal's stay order, pending appeal, had not been made. Today he tells us that the refund order has been received on 5^th March 2003. He however prays for grant of interest from the date of the final order of the Tribunal till the date of issue of refund order, citing the decision of the Tribunal in Agarwal Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. CC 2000 (116) ELT 613 and Priti Machines v. CCE 2001 (136) ELT 843.3. The departmental representative relies upon the order of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Sachin Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (146) ELT 541 to say that the Tribunal has no inherent power to grant interest.4. By this order, the larger bench of the Tribunal has returned an unanswered reference made by the...

Pasupati Traders Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT273Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant imported calculators, clock spare parts and umbrellas declaring a total value of Rs. 7,04,876/- claiming free import ability.An invoice from a Trading Co. in Hong Kong was produced. The goods were declared to be of Chinese origin. Details such as model, brand number, etc., were not available on perusal of the invoice. The goods were examined, samples taken and brand and model numbers, etc., ascertained.Bulk of the goods were of Korean and Chinese make. Except for CT 500 brand calculators, the details of the model, type Nos., etc., did not tally when compared with those on the goods and those on the documents.Prima facie it was a case of under-valuation. Earlier imports of CT 500 calculators of Chinese origin were noticed at USD 3.36 FOB as against USD 0.29 (CIF) declared by the importers. Importers were not able to produce the manufacturer's invoices. For the other goods market inquiries were conducted and values obtained. Show cause notice was issued. In reply the im...

Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT805Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the Revenue vide Order No.CI/3433/WZB/2001, dated 31-10-2001 [2002 (140) E.L.T. 282 (T)]. In the case, the issue was as to the quantification of duty where the manufacturer, who had taken credit had removed the inputs as such without using them in the production of final goods.2. In the impugned order, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of American Auto Services v. CCE [1996 (81) E.L.T.71 (T) = 1996 (13) RLT 364] in which it was held that the amount for reversal was the same which was paid as duty by the first manufacturer.3. The Tribunal in the aforesaid order reversed this decision following the ratio of the Tribunal judgment in the case of Sudarshan Chemical Industries [1999 (114) E.L.T. 700] and allowed the appeal.4. In this application it is claimed that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. v. CCE, [2000 (120) E.L.T. 228] had followed the ratio of the judgment in the ...

Multi Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT191Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeals were posted for admission. The appellants were not present. The issues being small the appeals were taken up for disposal.2. In both cases the assessees had lost the Modvatable copy of the duty paying documents. They had applied for permission to utilise the other copies as provided for in the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In both cases the Assistant Collector's decision of not allowing availment of Modvat on original copies of the invoice was communicated to the assessees.Two appeals were filed by them. The Commissioner disposed of the appeals. On the observation that there was no appealable order issued by the lower authority and therefore, the appeals did not fall under the purview of Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. "Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), [hereafter in this chapter refe...

Toughalt India Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this batch of cases, modvat credit has been denied tot he appellants how are engaged int he manufacture of M.S. drums falling under Chapter Sub-heading 7310 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, solely on the ground that the invoice issued by B.P.C.L. on which they availed credit did not bear pre-printed serial numbers but only bore hand written serial numbers and this resulted in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57GG(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. On hearing the ld. DR and perusing the records, I find that in a series of cases including the one reported in 2000(119) E.L.T. 672 (Tril) [Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Chandigarh va. Spectra Electronics (P) Ltd] it is held that credit, if otherwise admissible, cannot be disallowed on the ground that serial number of the invoice is written by hand.3. Following the ratio of this order, which in turn relies on several other orders of the Tribunal, I hold that the appellants are entitled to modvat credit, se...