Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Jyoti Structures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether in order for the appellant to obtain refund of duty paid by it in excess, it is required to establish as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act that incidence of duty which is available as refund has not been passed to any other person. The refund arose in the following manner. The appellant had filed on 19.3.1995 a classification list in which it claimed total exemption from duty available in notification 57/95 to parts of windmills (manufactured). Before the classification list was approved, the appellant received a letter from the Superintendent asking it to pay duty on the goods at 15% ad valorem until the classification is approved finally. While finally approving the classification, the Assistant Commissioner, on 26.4.1995 accepted the entitlement to the exemption. The appellant thereupon filed the claim of refund of the duty paid by it on the goods cleared by it between 19.3.1995 and 11.4.1995. While the...

Smt. Rasilaben H. Rathod and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This bunch of appeals have been filed against the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Gujarat, Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Original No. 15/Commr/2001 dtd.28/02/2001 whereby he has confiscated gold bars of foreign mark weighing 58.320 Kg. under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Custom Act. The said order also imposes penalties on the appellants before us varying from Rs. 50,00,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- on each of the appellants as follows:- 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 23rd October 1999 at about 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on information of Crime Branch of the Ahmedabad police made search of certain persons at Lakhodi Talav, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. The said persons were divided into two groups, who were waiting to hire a Rickshaw, when they were intercepted by police officers. On physical verification on the spot by the police officers on the said group of persons, they certain foreign marked gold biscuits concealed in shoes, cotton bags and waist belts. The ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lloyds Metals and Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1144Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arising out of separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In all these cases orders were passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur extending the benefit of modvat credit under Rule 57A/capital goods credit under Rule 57Q on different items. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reviewed such orders in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in order to satisfy himself as to the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order and found that the order in adjudication is not legal proper and correct; and therefore directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an application in proper form with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 35E of the Act. Appeals were preferred before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal who held that the appeals filed by the departm...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Dcl Polyester Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC567

1. In this case the adjudication order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhandara Division, extending the benefit of modvat credit of duty paid on polyester filament yarn (non-textured) used in the manufacture of polyester yarn (textured).The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reviewed order in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in order to satisfy himself as to the legality, propriety and correctness of the stay order and found that the order-in-original was not legal, proper and correct and therefore directed the Assistant Commissioner to file a fresh application in proper form with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 35E of the Act. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of maintainability as the direction of the Commissioner of Central Excise was to the Assistant Commissioner Headquarters (R&T), Nagpur while the adjudication order was passed by the As...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Charishma Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT427Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are being disposed off by this common order since the issue involved is the same.2. Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the material found as follows :- "I have examined the matter. It is relevant to consider the process of manufacture of the product in question adopted by the appellants. It is stated that the appellants procure extra Neutral Alcohol which is taken in a mixing vessel and within 10 minutes of time other ingredients like DEP, water, perfume, colour menthol etc. are added together and stirred well and transferred to a chiller for overnight maturation; that next the chiller is started to cool the mixture upto -8 degrees C to -5 degree C; that thereafter the mixture is filtered through sparker filter and kept there till it achieves room temperature; that quality control check is done after mixing and after filtration; that DEP was added to Alcohol for the purpose of denaturing it and other ingre...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mahendra Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue in this case revolves around the question as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the case after such power has been deleted by amendment to Sub-section (3) of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since question of law is involved I admit the appeal.3. The issue on merits is as to whether credit is admissible to the assessee, who was the respondents herein, on the basis of invoices issued by traders, which were found not to be in accordance with Notification 15/94 which has prescribed invoices issued by wholesale distributors/dealers of a manufacturer whereas the traders who had issued the invoices in question appear to be of a category other than wholesale traders. Such invoices were therefore treated as unacceptable for the purpose of modvat. The assessees had also taken credit on the strength of invoices issued by dealers not registered with Central Excise authorities at the time of issue of invoices as per the requirement of Notification 3...

Dhruv N. Shah Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]88ITD118(Mum)

ORDERPer Jaidev, A.M. This appeal of the assessee is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 30-3-2000, passed under section 263. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are argumentative but it is noticed that grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are in fact the substantive grounds of appeal and the remaining grounds are the arguments in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are reproduced as under :'1. The Commissioner erred in passing the order under section 263 on the ground that the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. The Commissioner erred in treating liquidated damages of Rs. 21,00,000 received by the assessee from M/s. Mahendra Builders Pvt. Ltd. as revenue receipt taxable under the head 'Capital gains'.'2. The facts are that assessee alongwith his father Mr. Nanalal Kapurchand Shah jointly (whose name was recorded for the sake of convenience) agreed to purchase share certificat...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is filed by Revenue was heard and the matter considered and it is found:- (a) The respondents are in E.O.U. engaged in the manufacture of Grey Fabrics and are also having permission to get their work done on job work basis. The appellants cleared their production to DTA, as permitted under Exim Policy against foreign exchange, advance release order, Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) (for short). The officers of the Central Excise visited the unit and detained 1173.283 Kgs. Of yarn containing 333 lumps of grey fabrics, for want of clarification. The appellants clarified the issues and DCCX, Kalyan II Division was pleased to release the detained fabrics with the direction to clear the goods on production of valid licence and after payment of appropriate duty. The appellants made submission as regards the duty applicable and requested to endorse the subject DFRC as per their interpretation and allow the assessees to make the clearance of the detained goo...

Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Centra ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,76,806/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- which arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has disallowed the capital goods credit on items such as steel forging, blanks, hot rolled bars and rods of alloy steel, MS bright bars, JSTI joints, MS tank, MS diesel storage tanks, MS channel and MS plates.2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that items are covered by the definition of capital goods and that the lower appellate authority has factually erred in holding them to be construction material for the purpose of disallowing credit. As regards MS tank and MS diesel storage tank it is his submission that storage tanks have already been held to be capital goods by orders of the Tribunal and therefore credit is admissible on these items as well as on the other items. The next contention is that he show cause notice has been issued without jurisdiction as it has been issued by the Sup...

Alok Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT276Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants re-imported two consignments of 100% cotton bleached drill fabrics totalling 67088.20 L.Mtrs. under their bills of entry Nos. 8363 and 8373, both dated 21-7-1998 which were originally exported in the year 1996-97. The re-imported consignments were used for making dyed fabrics. The appellants availed Modvat credit of duty amounting to Rs. 9,57,743/- which was paid at the time of clearing the re-imported consignments from Customs. The lower authorities have denied the credit resulting in this appeal.2. It is seen from the impugned order-in-appeal that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the credit on the ground that the appellants have paid basic customs duty in terms of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 at the time of re-importation and therefore no credit of the same can be taken since the duty paid by the appellants is not the additional customs duty.3. We have heard both sides. We find that Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 exempts re-impo...