Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Roha Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,75,845/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. The applicants who were availing the facility under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules cleared partially processed inputs to their job workers for spray drying which is a further process. They mentioned the estimated/expected quantity of yield of dry powder after processing by the job workers on the basis of the calibrated liquid quantity loaded in the tanker for the purpose of reversal of 10% of credit in terms of Rule 57F(6). The actual quantity loaded in the tanker is later mentioned in the challan after weighment. The applicants are alleged to have not followed the proper procedure for clearing the goods inasmuch as they failed to mention the actual weight of the goods before reversing 10% credit and also failed to mention concentration of the liquid sent for job work thus resulting in contravention of Rule 57F(8) and ru...

Hitkari Fibres Ltd. Vs. the Jt. Commr. of Income-tax, Spl.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD654(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the CIT(A) II Mumbai dated 21/1/2002 for the A.Y. 1997-98. The only ground of appeal taken up by, the assessee reads as follow: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write back of Rs. 4,18,63,920 made by the Assessing Officer Under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act and treating the same as income of the appellant. The appellant states that the amount written back was not allowed as a deduction and hence every write back would not be treated as income." 2. The assessee is a limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of non-woven fabrics. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1997-98 on December 1, 1997 declaring taxable income of Rs. 82,44,896 under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, on June 19, 1998 it filed a revised return declaring loss of Rs. 26,83,740 under the normal provisions of the Act and nil ...

Mahavir Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT355Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant Mahavir Corporation/ imported in various dates between 1997 and 1998 live consignments, which, in the bills of entry filed their clearance were declared to be "nylon tricot flocking fabrics" "(insole sheets for leather footwear)". The benefit of the exemption contained in entry 108 of the Table to Notification 11/97 was claimed and was granted. The goods were cleared on payment of concessional rate of duty available in terms of the notification.2. Entry 108 of the Table to the notification exempts from duty "The following goods for use in the leather industry, namely :- (1) parts, consumables and other items specified in List 3 (A), (2) other parts, consumables and items specified in list 3(B)." The investigation carried out by the department as to the use of nylon flocking fabrics in the leather industry and it is concluded that the fabrics had many uses apart from making as insole and mid-sole for footwear. In the course of the investigation, statements of an import...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Parekh Platinum Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The importers herein are engaged in the work of converting Gold bars imported by them from their Branch Officer overseas into gold plating chemical. The gold imported was cleared, duty free, on advance licences produced by the importers. No tangible duty payment is involved and the gold plating chemical manufactured by the importer is thereafter exported to the Branch Office who had sent the gold bars to them. This arrangement had the approval of Reserve Bank of India.2. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs (GATT Valuation Sale) examined he matter and ordered that the value declared on the invoice should be accepted under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this order, the department filed an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who after having gone into all the aspects of the agreement between the overseas suppliers and the importers and considering the order of the Dy. Commissioner rejected the departments appeal.3. Revenue has come in appeal against the orde...

Radiant Cables Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Phathalate Plasticizer stabilized Di-Octoyl Phathalate (DOP) valued at Rs. 3,07,216/- and claimed clearance under OGL as per Public Notice (ITC) 32 dated 17.7.92. The imported DOP was considered a raw-material and not spares or components of consumer durable and therefore, the provisions of para 23 (ITC Policy Book 1992-97) and Public Notice (ITC) 32 dated 17.7.92 was considered not to be applicable and therefore the goods were not covered under O.G.L. DOP falls under para 156 (I), Sr.No. 7 of the Negative List of the Imports of the policy 1992-97 A.M.and therefore, required a valid import licence for the clearance of the same. During the personal hearing before the lower authority the appellants submitted that they had applied to DGFT, New Delhi for issue of necessary licence, but were advised by DGFT vide their lette...

Lenzohm Electrical Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Lenzohm Electrical Engg. Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the repair of coils of electrical transformers, motors armatures. One of the processes involved in such repairs is unwinding of damaged coils and replacing of the damaged portion by a fresh strips of electrical conductors. The fresh strip was welded on the protruding end of the coil, the insulation wind around fresh strip which has been wound on the existing layer of the coil. The notice issued to it alleged that in this process the appellant manufacture insulated electric wire of an uninsulated wire and demanded duty on the insulated wire. The Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, held that there was manufacture of insulated wire and confirmed liability to duty and while ordering that the Assistant Commissioner to quantify the duty payable, imposed a penalty equal to the amount of duty recoverable. The appeal by the department against this order contends that the Commissioner himself held the goods liable to duty and t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Galaxy Entertainment

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT244Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Having heard both sides on the four applications filed by the department for rectification of mistakes stated to be present in the common order passed by us on the four appeals by the assessee on 4-7-2002, we proceed to dictate our order.2. The first mistake referred to in paragraph 6 in each of the applications (all being commonly worded) is that the Tribunal has not taken into account the contents of Clause (d) to the proviso under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The representative of the applicant points out that the Tribunal has specifically considered in paragraph 15 of its order, the submissions made by the departmental representative and refused to accept it on the ground that this is a new case now sought to be made and this clause was not at all in the notice issued to the party or in the Commissioner's order. The departmental representative seeks to contend that the documents on the basis of which this clause will apply were specified in the p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tapti Industrial Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1148Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the Commissioner held that the modvat credit in respect of the inputs lost as burning loss is not recoverable. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the Assistant Commissioner empowered to adjudicate the cases exceeding the duty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Board's instructions, the Assistant Commissioner has empowered only to adjudicate the cases involving demand less than Rs. 50,000/-.3. In respect of the merit of the case, the contention of the Revenue is that the respondents, who were doing the job work has to return the waste and scraps to the manufacturer, as the respondents were returning less waste and scraps. Therefore, the demand is sustainable.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the fact regarding burning losses is mentioned in the challan issued by the job worker. The Commissioner (Appeals) also relied upon the Board's Circular dated 15/...

Dianilins Organics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT916Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Commissioner and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It expressed the view that the provisional certificate, unless it is subsequently confirmed by being approved finally, stating the respondent to be a small-scale industry was not itself sufficient for that to obtain the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 174/86.2. The Counsel for the applicant contends that the Tribunal's order has to be set aside as the applicant was not heard. An affidavit by Rajendra Mavani, director of the applicant-company to say that he did not receive the notice of hearing.3. The affidavit suggests that the factory was closed from January, 2001 onwards. The notice of hearing seems to have been sent to the appellant at his address at Plot No. 94-95, GIDC, Pandesara, Surat.This is the address that appears in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in the appeal. The affidavit admits that the ap...

Sidhvan Yarns, Gautam Suri and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1190Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Sidhvan Yarn Ltd. was engaged in the dyeing of textured polyester yarn. If availed of the exemption contain Entry 116A of the Table to notification 4/97, as it stood at the relevant time. This entry exempted from duty in excess of duty at Rs. 6/- per kilogram dyed, printed, bleached and mercerised yarn, whether single, multiple (folded) or cabled, manufactured in a factory which does not have the facilities for producing single or draw twisted or texturised yarn. The exemption subject to condition inter alia that no credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57Q "has been availed in the process of dyeing, printing, bleaching, or mercerising in the manufacture of dyed, printed, bleached or mercerised yarn." Notice issued to the appellant alleged proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that it had taken credit under Rule 57Q. That duty paid on pineapple coner which it used in its factory.The assessee resisted the contention in the notice. The Commissioner held that credit having been taken c...