Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Universal Dyg. and Ptg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT234Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 61,335/- and penalty of equivalent amount, demanded and imposed on the ground that the applicant did not pay duty in terms of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 96ZQ on the one of its two stenters for the period from 16th and 17th December, 1998.2. Earlier, this Tribunal had been applying the ratio of the judgment of the ld. single judge of the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v. UOI - 2002 (52) RLT 636 holding the rules for determination of capacity of stenters of the Section 3 of the Act. It had been applying the principles set out in the decision of the Larger Bench in Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 has laid down the decision of the Three Member Bench in Madura Coats v. CCE - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 512, to the effect that except where there is a judgment to the contrary of the jurisdictional High Court the decision of any High Court in any particular matter, in the absence of contrary decision of any High Court is to be f...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I.G.P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT917Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is the basis for determination, for purposes of assessment of Central Excise duty, of the value of the goods cleared from the factory of I.G.P. Ltd. a 100% export oriented unit, the respondent to this appeal, to buyers in the domestic tariff area. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that this value ought to be determined in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, of value of such goods if imported into India.2. The challenge to this finding in the appeal is that the price at which the respondent sold the goods to the buyers forms its transaction value, and therefore is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules. This contention is clearly unacceptable.The transaction value referred to in Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules is the value of goods when sold in the course of an international trade by a buyer to seller. Merely because there is,...

Gold Seal Engg. Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Deputy Commissioner in the order impugned before him that the channels of rubber for tyres of motor vehicles were classifiable, not as parts of motor vehicles in Heading 87.08 of the Central Excise tariff, but as articles of vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber in Heading 40.16.3. The notice issued to the appellant proposed classification that has been finally accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that it was found that the products were nothing but articles of vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber. He did not cite any such material as technical evidence or report of chemical analysis of the goods. The absence of such material was urged by the appellant to the Commissioner (Appeals) while challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner and reiterated at the hearing before him on 10^th July 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals), without informing the appellant, ordered...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ate Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents filed a written submission and made a request to decide the appeal on merits.2. Heard the Ld. SDR. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing benefit of modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in their final product. The appellant received same inputs from small scale manufacturers and availed the Higher Notional Credit after 10 to 15 days from the receipt of the goods. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for denying the credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. On appeal filed by the Respondents the Commissioner (Appeals) after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mysore Lc & Paint Works Ltd. reported in [1991 (52) ELT 590 (T)] allowed the appeal.3. The contention of the Revenue is that as pre the trade notice issued by the Revenue the credit cannot be taken at later stage from the receipt of the inputs. The revenue relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT677Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Revenue wants to set aside the classification of "Candy Sugar" arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) under heading 1701.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and they want the classification to be approved under 1704.90 on the grounds:- "a) Sub-heading No. 1704 covering sugar confectionery is identical with Sub-heading 1704 pf HSN and Central Excise Tariff Act largely follows HSN, that Explanatory Notes thereto should be taken as guideline having persuasive value though not statutory authority. The Explanatory Note under heading 1704 of HSN covers most of the sugar preparations. b) From the process of manufacture of the product it is boiled sweets and as such would be covered by scope of heading 1704 of the Tariff going by the guidelines available in the HSN Explanatory Note.CCE v. S.M. Confectionery Works 1993 (66) ELT 469 (Tribunal) that the similar products viz. Ghadi Sakhar Rewadi, Gathi/Batasha being boiled sweets classifiable under Chapter Sub heading No. 1704.90 of Cent...

Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT1006Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of diesel internal combustion engine. The duty that has been demanded from, and penalty imposed on, the appellant relates to the supply of such engines manufactured and supplied to Goa Shipyard in the year 2000. The appellant cleared these goods without payment of any duty, claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in entry 3 of the table to the notification 64/95 as amended. This entry exempts from duty goods supplied as stores for consumption on board ships of the Indian navy or coast guard. Notice issued to the appellant demanded duty and proposed penalty on the ground that the engine that were supplied were not stores for consumption on board ships of the Indian navy or coast guard, but were in fact supplied to be fitted on to ships being constructed by Goa Shipyard for supply to navy or coast guard. The Commissioner has confirmed this view and imposed penalty.3. It is contended by the appellant that engines were in act supplie...

Santogen Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalties against all the appellants, we take up all the appeals inasmuch as prima facie we are convinced that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice.2. In the annexure to the show cause notice a list of 17 documents relied upon have been shown. The said annexure shows that only copies of the relied upon documents from serial Nos. 2 to 6 were supplied to the appellants with direction to them to inspect the balance documents as reflected against Serial Nos. 7 to 16. The appellants vide their letters dated 26-2-2001 and 26-11-2001 made a prayer for supply of all the documents relied upon in the show cause notice. Though the said letters were received by the Revenue there was no response to the same and the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner without considering the above request of the appellants. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Revenue was duty bound ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Colour Chem Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1135Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit on the inputs used in the final product which is washed away in the flood.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and were availing the benefit of modvat credit in respect of inputs used in their final product. During the month July 1989 due to floods their semi finished goods as well as finished goods were washed away. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. The revenue issued show cause notice for recovery of the credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product as well as in the semi finished goods. The Commissioner Central Excise in a separate proceeding allowed the benefit of modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the semi-finished goods washed away floods. The Revenue filed the appeal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal reported as Commissi...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. Jai Mata International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT294Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Revenue has filed the appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is being reproduced in full as:- "This appeals has been filed by M/s. Jai Mata International (hereinafter called as appellants against Order in Original No. S/10-202/99 Gr.III Dated 18/01/2001 passed by Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Group III. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Jai Mata International, G.T. Road, Panipat imported a consignment of premutilated Synthetic Original Rags vide invoice no.nil dated 11.09.99 and filed Bill of Entry No. 4456 dated 12.10.99 for clearance of goods. The goods were prima facie found to be imported at a price lower than the normal price prevailing in the international market. A show cause notice was issued to enhance the price and the matter was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 30.11.99 wherein he enhanced the value of the imported goods to U.S.$ 0.32 per Kg. and also confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Cust...

Dr. Suresh G. Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]50SCL9(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. Heard Shri Adik Shirodkar, Sr. Counsel for the applicants and Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the state. With the permission of the Court, Shri Rajendra Solankar, Advocate representing Bombay Depositors and Financial Brokers Welfare Association as also Investors who requested to be heard, were also heard.2. Dr. Suresh Motwani, applicant in Bail Application No. 1888/03 is the chairman of Roofit Industries Limited and Sun Earth Ceramics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Companies') both of which are public limited companies. Mr. Madan Relwani applicant in Bail Application No. 1889/03 is a non executive Director of Sun Earth Ceramics Limited. Both the Companies had accepted deposits from the members of the public and it is alleged that the companies have committed default in payment of the principal amount and interest on the deposits. Dr. Motwani was arrested on 8th May 2003 and Mr. Relwani was arrested on 9th May 2003 in respect of the alleged offences committed by th...