Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

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...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. United Phosphorus Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC197Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara in so far as it relates to extending modvat credit of Rs. 9,01,375.06 on circuit breakers, isolating switches, DC sockets, copper bus bars, panels, power sockets, convenience sockets and auxiliary panels.2. On hearing both sides I note the Revenue's own case in their appeal memorandum is that the items are in the nature of electrical equipment which according to them are not covered by the definition of capital goods. The description of the items as admitted by the department is as follows: "These items are nothing but "electrical apparatus for switching/distributing power to other apparatus". Being goods, which are not related to the manufacture of final excisable product, allowing credit on it as capital goods is not correct. Since their function does not at all relate to the production of processing nor does it bring about any change in the final product, such goods cannot be...

The Raigad S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the appellant's eligibility to modvat credit of duty paid on various products under Rule 57A.2. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the denial of credit by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the goods on which credit was taken do not fall within the definition of inputs contained in the explanation below Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A.3. One of the items in question is fuel treat. Counsel for the appellant explains that the fuel treat is an organic chemical, which is used to treat bagasse to render it suitable for use as fuel in the appellant's furnace to produce electricity.4. The Commissioner has denied the credit on various types of lubricating oils on the ground that it has not been shown that they were used to lubricate the manufacturing machines and or machinery and it could have been used in other kinds of machines which were not directly used to produce any products or for bring out an...

Gujarat Tractor Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. (Appeal ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT372Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None is present on behalf of the appellant. Shri. A.K. Saxena, ld.JDR is present on behalf of the Revenue. He contended that the goods were received in the factory on 15-12-1991 and they were cleared on 17-6-1992 beyond the period of six months. As per the requirement of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 goods cleared beyond the expiry period of six months from the date of receipt, prior permission should have been obtained from the competent authority. In this case such a permission has not been obtained by the appellant before the clearance beyond the period of six 'months and as such the demand raised is valid and has rightly been confirmed by the adjudicating authority.2. After hearing ld. JDR and perusal of the records, I do not find any legal flaw in the order passed by the adjudicating authority. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant....

Shri Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Asst. Com. of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD525(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.03.2002 of CIT (A)-XII, Mumbai.2. The first ground of appeal pertains to confirmation by the learned CIT (A) of validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This ground of appeal was not seriously contested on behalf of the assessee. We find that the assessee had filed a writ petition in the Honorable Bombay High Court challenging the issue of notice u/s 148 and the H.C. eventually upheld the validity of the proceedings intiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issue of notice u/s 148. In view of the above facts, the finding of the learned CIT (A) on this issue is confirmed. "The C.I.T. (A) erred in holding that the assessment order dated 31.07.2000 passed in consequent of notice dated 18.03.1998 issued under section 148 was not barred by limitation." 4. The assessee is an individual and is proprietor of two concerns viz.M/s. Bio Basic Industrial Undertaking (Daman) and M/s. Basix (India)...

Shri Mohamad Naseer, Shri Parviz Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT560Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order dated 28.05.96 of the Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai, whereby he has ordered absolute confiscation of goods seized from the premises of M/s. Amar Wire & Rolling Mills, Sewree and from the residential premises of Shri Ashok Oza (Appeal No. C/616/96-Bom) under Section 111(d), (m) and (o) of the Customs Act and directed realise of the goods seized from the shop premises of Shri Ajay S. Vora (Appeal No. C/618//96 Bom); National Fridge seized from the residence of Shri Ashok Oza and two trucks bearing Registration No. MHL-4328 and MTS 2036 and imposing the following penalties on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act: 2. All appeals arise out of the common adjudication order and are hence hard together and imposed of by this common order.3. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of specific information that excess dutiable goods were going to be imported/smuggled by certain persons at Unaccompanied Baggage Cent...

Manik Industrial Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants herein manufacture articles of iron and steel and furniture and parts thereof. During the financial year 2000-2001 they paid full duty and did not claim small scale exemption although their aggregate value of clearances during the preceding financial year was below Rs. 3 crores. Instead they availed of the special procedure for monthly payment of duty under Rule 173GG of the Central Excise Rules during the period July, 1999 to March 2000. They continued this practice even after they were directed by the Superintendent of Central Excise to stop the procedure. They continued paying duty on monthly basis from April, 2000 to September, 2000. In these circumstances a show cause notice proposing recovery of duty and proposing imposition of penalty was issued. Notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty totalling to Rs. 7,99,781/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the plea of the applicants that...

Abm Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below I waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay of recovery thereof and proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. Modvat credit has been disallowed in one case on the ground that the credit was availed on inputs prior to issue of the registration certificate, duty paying documents did not bear pre-printed serial numbers and credit was availed prior to filing of modvat declaration.In the other case credit has been disallowed on the ground that the declaration was filed belatedly without an application seeking condonation of delay.3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants as far as availment of credit on inputs prior to issue of registration certificate is concerned that they had requested that this may be treated as permissible under the provisions of Rule 57H. Regarding non-pre-printing of serial numbers it is their submission that it has already been held by the Tribunal that this can...

J.K. Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this case is Recovery of duty ordered to be paid jointly and severally by - i) The importer, who is the appellant herein who was a transferee of a DEEC licence, obtained by the Exporter M/s. Vantage Leathers India Pvt. Ltd., Madras & had cleared the goods as permissible on that licence under the provision of notification No. 203/92. ii) The exporter of the goods viz. M/s. Vantage Leather India Pvt. Ltd. who had alleged not reversed the modvat credit, alleged to have been availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported.& the levy of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Custom Act on the importer the appellant herein.2. The issue is no longer Res integra having been settled by the catena of decisions of this tribunal. The decision in the case of M/s. Good Luck Industries [1999 (108) E.L.T. 818] holding in case of very said notification 203/92 CUS dtd. 19/05/1992 that Burden of Proof as to fulfillment of export obligation & whether Modvat ...

Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Centra ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT516Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II, made in Order-in-Original No. 3/MP/97 dated 28.10.1997 in and by which the Commissioner disallowed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,71,269/- and ordered recovery of the said sum in terms of Rule 571 of the Central Excise Rules. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,71,269/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The assessee is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of unwrought refined lead ingots falling under sub-heading 7801.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. On 27.1.1992, the assessee wrote the following letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman. Kindly permit us to introduce ourselves as the manufacturers of the Lead and Lead Alloys which is falling under Chapter 78 of Central Excise Tariff. We commenced our production after getting the permission of Centr...