Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Grauer and Weil (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals), against whose order the Revenue has preferred the above appeal has held that capital goods credit of Rs. 3,00,247.50 is admissible to the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of electroplating chemicals on testing equipment used for research and development.2. On hearing both sides I find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal's order in the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh 2002 (139) ELT 101 wherein it has been held that capital goods used for testing and R&D are eligible to modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q C.E. Rules. Therefore I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal....

Centaur Silk Mills, Suresh G. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC401

1. Mr. Naresh Thacker request adjournment on the ground that Mr.Nankani who is engaged in the matter is held up with personal problem.The matter first came up on 21.1.2003 and was adjourned on the request of counsel R.J. Bhatia, advocate to 3/4/2003. On that date, Mr. C.R.Hirani, advocate who appeared sought adjournment. The bench was not inclined to adjourn as it was adjourned before. Mr. Hirani requested that relevant papers were missing on account of change of his office and sought a few days time. Accordingly, the matter was adjournment to today. In the light of the fact that the matter has been adjourned twice before, and at the last occasion on the specific request of counsel on account of misplacement of paper and said he would argue matter on next occasion, we find it odd that the matter should now be argued by some other advocate. We do not in any event find ground for adjournment. On this being mentioned to Thacker, he requested that the matter be passed over, which we did. ...

Elcid Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)819

ORDERS.R. Chavhan, J.M.:This stay application has been filed by the petitioner-assessee-appellant in respect of ITA Nos. 1745 to 1747/M/2003 for assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the record. 3. In this SA the petitioner-appellant seeks this Tribunal to stay the demand outstanding against the petitioner-appellant for the abovementioned three assessment years involved in the three IT appeals mentioned above. At the outset, we have heard the learned counsel regarding the permissibility to file one SA in respect of three assessment years involved in three appeals. The learned Departmental Representative also raised objection in respect of this. The learned authorised representative of assessee contended that as far as the stay petition is under one enactment, the assessee-petitioner can file one SA irrespective of the number of appeals and the number of assessment years involved therein. He has contended that this iss...

Lloyds Steel Inds. Ltd., Lloyds Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this bunch of appeals, Appeal E/1980/97 has been field by the Commissioner, whereas other appeals have been filed by the assessee. We shall take up the facts in the Appeal 2355/97. The assessee in this batch of appeals is manufacturing HR coils. The appellants claimed modvat credit in respect of Cement, Magnesium, Ramming Mass, Mortar, Refractory items, Chemical Binders, Fluxes, EPABX, Lathe Machine Parts, Construction equipments, Grease Gums and claimed modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q as capital goods. The Commissioner by the impugned order has rejected the modvat credit on various grounds for different items.Hence the present appeal by the assessee. As far as E/980/97 is concerned by the impugned order, the Commissioner has allowed the modvat credit in respect of HR plates and coil used in conveyor gallery as parts against which department has filed the appeal.2. As far as the items for which modvat credit has been denied it is the contention of the assessee before us that ...

Vada Timber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (appeals).2. In this case, the benefit of modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the appellant had not received the goods but future the credit and penalty was also imposed on the appellants.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of modvat credit. Appellants availed the credit in respect of the imported veneer. On verification, it was found that the imported goods were diverted to M/s. Durian Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the appellants have only taken credit which is not permissible.5. The contention of the appellant is that the goods were received by them on 19.11.96 and 21.11.96. The material was accompanied by road challans of M/s. Wester Carriers. The contention is that there was no evidence that the goods were diverted to M/s. Durian Industries and this allegation is without any ba...

Sunrise Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT957Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Sunrise Zinc Ltd., Cuncolin, Goa, was, at the relevant time, engaged in the manufacture of electrolytic zinc and copper. It took Modvat credit under Rule 57T the additional duty of customs paid on quantities of di (2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid (hereinafter referred as "the chemical") which it imported. The use of this product, it is stated, is necessary in the manufacture of electrolytic zinc and copper. The appellant took credit of the additional duty of customs paid on these goods whenever it received in its factory.2. In the course of their activities, the officers of the Commissioner intercepted a van carrying 20 drums of this chemicals from the appellant's factory, for which a commercial invoice had been issued to the buyer of the goods, which did not show payment of excise duty. The officers conducted further investigation after seizing the material.The investigation showed that the appellant was engaged in the correspondence with Apsara Industries for sale of the goods and ...

Vardha Agro Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri S. Narayanan, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that there is a duty demand of Rs. 3,19,516/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed under Rule 173Q. He also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further stated that the appellants are under tremendous financial hardship and as such any order for pre-deposit of the duty and penalty may further put them under great financial hardship. Further he submitted that the applicants have got strong prima facie case on merits and they have every chance of success in appeal. He fairly conceded that in an identical matter this bench has ordered for making some pre-deposit.2. Shri A.K. Saxena, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the Order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that the applicant may be asked to make some pre-deposit as in the previous cases.3. After hearing both sid...

Parul Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 23,511/- and penalty of Rs. 2500/-, I found that it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage.Hence, after waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, I proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, as the issue indispute has been settled by the precedent orders of the Tribunal.2. The issue in dispute is as to what is the rate of duty at which inputs can be cleared as such after amendment to Cenvat Rules, according to which appropriate duty is to be paid. According to the appellants, the credit is to be reversed n clearance prior to 1.3.01 at the rate paid by the original manufacturer, while according to the Revenue it is the rate prevalent at the date of clearance of the goods.3. I find that the issue has been settled by the Tribunal in its decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi [2002(53) RLT 395] in favour of the assess...

Orient Cerwool Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ceramic fibres falling under Chapter 68 of the schedule to 20.1.95, the jurisdictional Range Officer visited their factory and found that the RG.1 register entries were not made for the period 1.1.95 to 19.1.95 although excisable goods had been manufactured and cleared on payment of duty under regular invoices during this period. Therefore, in order to ascertain the exact stock position, physical verification was carried out of finished goods lying in BSR and outside, but near the BSR. The excess stock was seized; show cause notice proposing confiscation for non accountal, confirmation of duty amount and imposition of penalty was issued. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh on the company and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the company secretary. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence, this appeal.2. I ...

Wockhardt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1091Tri(Mum.)bai

1. There are two items in dispute in the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing Modvat credit: (1) Distilled Water Storage Tank (SS Vessel) and (2) Laminated Air Flow Unit.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on the basis of the written submission. Hence, I heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. The appellants explained that since they are manufacturing I.V.fluids the basic raw material for which is distilled water which is required to be kept at a temperature of 80C only till it is sent for batch manufacturing and the tanks are specially designed to maintain such temperature. They also rely upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Limited reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 674 and other decisions to support their claim of eligibility of this item to capital goods credit under Rule 57Q.4. The next item, namely, Laminated Air Flow Unit, ensures that the testing area of I.V. fluids is free of pollutants, sterile and all...