Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

P.M.P. Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants have come in the appeal against the following two findings arrived by the lower authorities :- (a) The wholesale dealers cannot be considered as belonging to different classes of buyers when they are located in different towns or cities and different discounts are not permissible to be deducted to arrive at the assessable value for excise purposes relying upon Board Circular No. 24/14/93, dated 31-12-93. (b) The price list filed for reduction in prices for the subsequent year were dismissed on the ground that there was no reason for the reduction in prices.2. As regards the issue at Serial No. (a) above the matter is now well settled, in the case of Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 25 (Del.). The Order of Delhi High Court, in appeal filed by the Union of India was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order. "It is fairly stated that the Civil Appeals must be di...

Moontex Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals have been preferred against a common Order-in-Appeal dated 29/5/97 vide which the Commr. (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority who ordered confiscation of the semi-finished and finished goods and imposed penalties on the appellants as detailed therein.2. (SIC) the facts are not much in dispute. The appellant No. 1 is a firm, while the appellant No. 2 is a partner of that firm looking after its day to day affairs and business of the firm. The Preventive Officers of the Central Excise raided the factory premises of the appellant on 12.4.1995 and found 336 pieces of semi-finished and 401 pieces of finished goods, that is man-made fabrics, and grey fabrics which were not entered in the statutory records. All those goods had ben detailed in the Show-cause Notice, and these were seized after preparing panchnama, in the presence of two witnesses. The statement of the appellant No. 2, partner of the firm, was recorded wherein he has ad...

R.S. Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the liability to duty as determined by the Additional Commissioner's order on quantities of N-Hexane and derived cixon which he finds manufactured by the appellant and cleared on payment of duty and penalty imposed on it.3. Counsel for the appellant states that he finds that during the relevant period it received from Indian Petrochemicals Corporation, Vadodara quantities of cixon that arose in its factory under the provision of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F. It isolated the N-hexane from this product and sent back this commodity as well as the remnant of the cixon technically as returned stream to IPCL to clear these product after paying duty. He accepts that the finding of the authorities that during the relevant time April and July 1999 cixon was not specified as an input to the table to the notification 21/99 dated 28.2.97. He contends however that cixon that was sent to the appellant was not an input by ...

Ceat Ltd., V. Velayudhan and R.K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT885Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three appeals have been filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai II, made in Order-in-Original N o. 20/2002 dated 25.2.2002 whereunder he has demanded a sum of Rs. 105,86,37,838.20 towards duty and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The order also confiscated plant and machinery of both factories of the appellant and fixed the fine at Rs. 1 crore. The impugned order further ordered imposition of penalty on two of the employees namely R.K. Dawan and velayuthan at Rs. 5 lacs each. The order also imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lacs on the assessee under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and tubes falling under chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The have two factories at Bhandup in Mumbai and Nashik in Maharashtra. In the Bhandup factory of the appellant, the appellant is also engaged in the manufacture of intermediate product called D...

Metro Industries, Metro Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application No. 1389/02. This is an application for seeking waiver of payment of duty of Rs. 5,56,090/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Facts of the case are the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Essence of Phenyl (Tiger Brand), white perfumed deodorant (Tiger brand) and liquid Blue falling under Chapter Sub Heading Nos. 3808.90, 3307.49 and 3206.90 the appellant was charged with violation of provisions of Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with various rules of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No. I/93 relating to small scale exemption. The adjudicating authority did not grant the exemption on the ground that the assignment of trade mark by Metro Chemical Works (Appellant in Appeal No. E/1523/2002) to Metro Industries (Appellant in Appeal No.E/1522/2002) was not registered with the Trade-Mark Registry. The adjudicating authority notes in his order at page 35 of the paper book that the assessee Metro Industries used...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Hind Industrial and Mercantile

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein had imported 1446 pieces of short form catalogues and 54 pieces of 3rd edition data books vide bill of entry dated 30-9-1996. The department was of the view that the short form catalogues fall for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 4911.10 and data books under Customs Tariff Heading 99.09 respectively, and restricted for import without specific licence as per the ITC (HS) Exim Code. The importers disputed the classification and requested for classification under CTA sub-heading 4911.99. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were classifiable under Customs Tariff Headings 4911.10 and 99.09 respectively and since the goods falling under these headings were indicated as consumer goods as per the ITC Exim Code they were restricted and in the absence of valid licence were liable to confiscation. He therefore ordered confiscation with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/- and imposed a p...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT913Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides on the application pointing out some errors in the stay order, we clarify the position as follows.2. The representative of the appellant in the first paragraph of the order that he was withdrawing that part of the application relating to demand for payment of a sum demanded under Rule 57CC of Rs. 84.21 lakhs (shown in that paragraph as Rs. 84.21 lakhs is correct). However, the reason for not pressing the application for waiver of deposit of duty was not that it had been paid, but that, since in the light of the clarification issued by the Board that the sums payable in terms of Rule 57CC were not duty, the provisions of Section 35F would not be applicable.3. The reference elsewhere in the order to this sum were made in the context of the penalty imposed on the assessee....

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Resham Singh and Co. P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we reject the applications of the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has held that bar of unjust enrichment does not operate against the respondents herein who are importers of cranes, merely on the ground that they claimed depreciation of capital goods for Income Tax purposes, and proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts are that the respondents herein imported truck cranes, which were allowed clearance under heading 8426.41. The Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal filed by the importers held that the correct classification would be CTA heading 8426.91 and the cases were remanded for consideration of this classification. The adjudicating authorities classified the goods under heading 8426.91 on the basis of the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, the importers claimed refund of excess duty paid, which had arisen as a r...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rishi Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order dtd.24/05/1996, vide which the Commissioner had dropped the proceeding against the Respondents, for reversal of the modvat credit of Rs. 1,45,790.70.2. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of mild steel ingots for which raw material was purchased by them from outside on the basis of gate passes, from the ship breaking companies/traders, in the month of April 1992 and availed modvat credit of Rs. 1,45,790.70. But on scrutiny of the gate passes by the officers of the Central Excise, 15 out of 213 gate passes, were found to be bogus as issuance of the same was denied by the consigner of the goods. The respondents were accordingly issued the show cause notice for reversal of the modvat credit. In reply, they pleaded their bonafide in the purchase of raw material, on the basis of the gate passes against payment through cheques and also raised the plea of limitation by alleging that the demand for the...

Miltex Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT431Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing for some time and considering the submissions, it is found that the outcome of this appeal, would depend on the question of determination of the eligibility of exemption notification, in Appeal No. E/35/2003 filed by the same appellant which has been remanded back for re-determination of the eligibility of the exemption notification claimed therein.2. The plea made by the learned advocate that in this appeal since there was no demand under heading 39.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which classification they are not challenging, therefore the turn over of the specified goods cleared by them under heading 39.20 should not count to determination their excise exemption slab limits is a this proposition that cannot be accepted. Since the goods are dutiable and specified and no exemption notification exempting them fully from duty has been cited. The turn over such specified goods under heading 39.20 cannot be excluded. However, the alternate submission of the learne...