Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Lloyed Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 47,38,161/- disallowed as modvat credit on furnace oil and LDO availed by the appellants during the period June 1998 to February 1999, in addition to personal penalty o Rs. 47,000/-.2. As per the fact of record, the said credit was initially availed by the appellants in respect of furnace oil and LDO to the extent of 10% only. It was only subsequently that the differential credit was availed by them on the ground that the said notification is not applicable of taking of credit under Rule 57 B having been issued under Rule 57 A.The lower authorities have not accepted the above stand of the appellants and has confirmed demand of duty against them.3. We have Shri V.K. Jain, learned Chartered Accountant for the appellants and Shri M.H. Sheikh, and learned J.D.R. for the Revenue.The appellants contention is that the restriction imposed under Notification No. 14/1997-C.E.(NT) dated 3.5.1997 would not appl...

M.Ambalal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT944Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In March 1991, the officers of the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay seized from the premises of M. Ambalal & Company and from its employees rough diamonds of the value of Rs. 3.32 lakhs approx and cut and polished diamonds valued at Rs. 84.47 lakhs. In the course of the investigation, statements were recorded of Maganbhai Dayabhai Patel, a partner of the firm and other persons to the effect that the rough and polished diamonds had been smuggled into India by passengers and that the cut and polished diamonds have been obtained by polishing such rough and unpolished diamonds. On the basis of these statements and other documents, notice was issued to M. Ambalal & Company and the other persons concerned proposing confiscation of the diamonds under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act and imposing penalties on various persons concerned. On adjudication, the Collector ordered confiscation of the diamond with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. He...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dcl Polyesters Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is Revenue's appeal against the Order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vide which he has allowed Modvat credit in respect of some of the capital goods. Vide the same impugned order the Commissioner has also disallowed modvat credit in respect of certain other items. We are informed by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appeal filed by them against that portion of the order disallowing the modvat credit has since been allowed by the Tribunal. As such we are concerned only with that portion of the order by which the Commissioner has allowed the modvat credit.2. After hearing Shri S.S. Bhagat, Ld. SDR and Shri J.C. Patel, Ld.Advocate for the respondents we find that the modvat credit was disallowed in respect of electrical wires and cables, control boards, power driven pumps and trolley wheels. Shri J.C. Patel submits that all the above items have been considered by the Tribunal in various judgments and held to be admissible modvatability ca...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Godavari Dudhana Sahakari Sakhar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the three appeals, have been filed by Revenue against the following finding of the Commissioner:- (a) In Order-in-Original 62/95 dated 21.12.95 passed by Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nanded. "I have carefully considered the submissions made both by the appellants as well as respondents. I find that in this case, department has not doubted genuineness of the price at which molasses were sold. Merely because prices were lower than the cost of production, assessment is being sought to be made at the price of Rs. 1000/- per MT being the cost of production + other incidental charges. This is totally incorrect as under Section 4, once the normal price at which the goods are sold is available, the department cannot reject the normal price merely because it is less than the cost of production, specially when the genuineness of the price is not in doubt. Since the department has not questioned the genuineness of the price at which molasses were sold, which was fixed by inviting t...

indorama Synthetics (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT226Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of partially oriented yarn, draw texturised yarn, polyester stable fibre, polyester chips etc. for which principal raw material is purified terephthalic acid imported from South Korea, Indonesia etc. They have a licenced bonded warehouse inside their factory premises. During the visit of Central Excise officers to the factory, it was found that the appellants had received imported PTA vide the Bill of Entry dated 28.10.97 for bonding in their warehouse but they have directly unloaded the same in their duty paid godown, tampering the Customs seal, and the neither informed the Customs Department about the receipt of the raw material nor obtained any permission for depositing the material in the bonded ware house. On further verification, it was found that they have started using the material without housing inbonding and exbonding procedure and without payment of duty from 20.11.97 and had consumed total quantity of 890.00 M.T. of ...

Ludhiana Wollen and Silk Mills, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the three appeals have been taken up together as they arise out of same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which all the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has directed the appellants to deposit entire amount of duty as well as penalty imposed upon them. Shri V.D. Taralgatti, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they are running into financial difficulties and the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified with his direction for the deposit of entire dues. Ld. JDR submits that the quantum of duties and penalties are required to be deposited by them in terms of provisions of Section 35F be reduced.2. In these circumstances, we direct the appellant M/s. Hast Kamal Tex Chem P. Ltd. to deposit the entire amount of basic excise duty of Rs. 4,37,800 and additional excise duty of identical amount within a period of eight weeks from today. Subject to depo...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. J.B. Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT943Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents imported plastic laminated sheets. The Collector of Customs, Kandla adjudicated the case and held that the impugned goods cannot be considered as consumer goods. This is an appeal filed by the department in terms of Board's order No. 8/R-96 dated 11.01.1996 passed by Smt. Ila Chatterjee, Member who on review of the adjudication order, has recorded that the said order of the Commissioner was not legal and proper. The ground adduced by her is as follows:- "Though the item laminated plastic sheets is not directly covered under the definition of the term "consumer goods" which are not permitted for import except against a licence, the item laminated plastic sheet is directly used as a consumer item for the purpose of manufacture of furniture and decoration items which are directly consumed by human beings." 2. It is seen from the above that in one breath she says that the laminated plastic sheets is not directly covered under the definition of the term "consumer goods" ...

Pankaj Trading Co., Paper Sales Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT976Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are 3 appeals filed by the appellants against the common Order dated 22.4.92 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Since the issue involved in all the 3 appeals are common, the same are being disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order, the Collector of Customs has confiscated the goods, levied duty, imposed penalty, fine and interest under the provisions of Customs Act 1962. In appeal No. C/3543/92, the supplementary order dated 14th August 92 is also under challenge.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported 5 consignments of ivory board sizes 28" x 22" supplied by M/s.Hattori Paper and Board, Japan in 5 invoices of dated 22.9.91. They were also against indent No. 6-10/91. Letter of credit was opened on 24.9.91 for shipment on or before 30.9.91. Though the Bills of Lading were dated 30.9.91, the ship left Japan Port only on 8.10.91. It was alleged that the appellants were aware because of the letter dated 2.10.91 received from...

Mr. Mohd. Idris Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for early hearing of the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs inter-alia confiscating Toyota Lexus Car, confirming differential duty and imposing penalty is allowed as the applicant/importer is an individual (SIC) his car has been in the custody of the department since import in 2000. Connected appeal No. E/1538-1539/2000 are also directed to be listed together with the above appeal. All three appeals to come up on 24.7.2003....

T.E.L.C.O Ltd., Shri Atul Kumar, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the stay petitions are directed against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur vide which duty of Rs. 44,839,88.70 has been confirmed against M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Ltd. along with confirmation of interest and imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under the provisions of Rules 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and an identical amount of personal penalty has been further imposed under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, penalties have been imposed upon on the other appellants who are employees of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., under the provisions of Rules 209A.2. Shri V. Sridharan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant draws our attention to para 4.7 of the impugned order in which it is recorded tat the appellants have paid a sum of Rs. 52,30,273.47 on various dates during the course of investigation. As such, he submits that the said deposit covers entire amount o...