Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Mahalaxmi Tube Industries, J.V. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1062Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application by Padmavati Tubes is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 29,23,187/- to which Rs. 1.5 lakhs has already been paid, and a penalty of equivalent amount imposed. The Commissioner has also demanded interest on the quantity which is unquantified. Application by C.M. Vohera, power of attorney holder, Piyush Vohera, partner are for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively. Applications by Mahalaxmi Tube Inds. and J.V. Shah, its partner are for waiver of deposit of penalties Rs. 48,747/- and Rs. 4000/- respectively imposed on them.2. We have heard J.V. Shah for himself and Mahalaxmi Tubes Inds. The applicants are absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. Padmavati Tubes is a manufacturer of brass tubes. The officers in the course of search of the firm found a number of documents containing account relating to production of the material and clearance of finished goods by the assessee. They were of the view that the duty have not been paid and ...

Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Cce and C

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC173

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 fact suppli...

Sai Ashish Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Counsel for the appellant in his letter has requested adjournment on the ground that his client has filed a civil petition in the High Court of Gujarat "which is an essential evidence in the above referred case" and on the further ground that his client is in High Court for important matter and therefore he could not get any instruction and copy of the writ petition. We find it difficult to accept either of these claims. It is difficult to see how a writ petition filed before the high Court constitute evidence in an appeal before he Tribunal and no explanation as to this is forthcoming in the letter. It is also difficult to understand why the advocate for the applicant required assistance of the client to get the writ petition which he could himself have obtained from the High Court. It is also not possible to understand the significance of the instruction which it is sated could not be given by S.R. Patil because he was busy in the High Court. After all, the S.R. Patil would be av...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Garden Silk Mills Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal filed by Revenue, the issue involved is about the eligibility of certain goods for the Modvat Credit under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. I heard Shri H. Kothikar, learned SDR for Revenue and Shri D.P.Marathe, Manager (Excise) of the Respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat Credit in respect of Silicon Spray and Water Treatment Compound. Silicon Spray is used to clean and wipe spinnerettes through which molten filament comes out. Water Treatment Compound is used at filament stage when filament comes out of spinnerattes and solidifies. It is the contention of the Department that Silicon Spray is simply cleaning agent to clean spinnerattes and Water Treatment Compound is used for purification of water and as such it cannot be said that these items are used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. I do not find any force in the submissions of the Revenue. Rule 57A of the Central Excise R...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maharashtra Cylinder Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC371

1. When the matter came up for hearing yesterday respondent was absent and unrepresented but by its letter has requested adjournment on the ground that its employee is unable to attend on account of illness of his mother. It is the third time the matter has come up. When the respondent was represented by Mr. Vipin Jain, Chartered Accountant on 1.4.2003, on which date it was adjourned. It was adjourned on 7^th May, 2003 at the request of the assessee. The document presently submitted by the assessee does not incidentally suggest any illness or disease as claimed. We therefore decline to adjourn and having heard the departmental representative proceed to dictate the order. No submissions have been filed by the assessee.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of cylinders which it supplied to Indian Oil Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., or Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to be used by them for storing liquified petroleum gas. It filed in February 2001 a claim for refund of p...

Gurjari Building Materials Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC393

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Gurjari Building Materials (P) Ltd. The issue involved is whether benefit of MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs is available to them without filing declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the appellants. As the appeal is quite old and is being adjourned from time to time on the request of the appellants, I take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri H. Kothikar, learned S.D.R. and after perusing the records.3. The appellant is a SSI Unit and avail exemption up to the limit specified in SSI Notification and thereafter availed MODVAT credit.They filed declaration under Rule 57G on 11.9.1989. At the beginning of new financial year 1990-91 they again availed exemption from payment of duty upto the specified limit of 20 Lakhs under Notification No.175/86-CE dated 01.03.1986. They had also field classification list claiming exemption upto Rs. 20 Lakhs and payment of duty...

Maxtone Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification, both for purposes of import licensing as far as Customs Tariff of the Intel Celeron processor of the appellant imported. The classification that it claimed in Heading 85.42 of the Customs Tariff as far as under the import policy was not accepted by the department is proposed classification of the goods in Heading 84.73. Confiscation of the goods and penalty was also proposed. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the classification proposed by the department in 8473.30 of the tariff for purpose of assessment and ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 18,000/-.2. The processor imported by the appellant consisted of an assembly consisting of the microprocessor chip, embedded in a printed circuit board with a heat sink and a cooling fan. The contention of the representative of the appellant that the printed circuit only forms the substr...

Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT936Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question involved in this case is whether on the basis of certificate given by the appraiser of custom posted in foreign post office the assessee could claim Modvat credit.2. The credit, which was denied by both authorities below that certificate issued by the appraiser of custom posted in foreign post office, could not be the basis for taking the credit In my view stand of the two authorities are wrong. Board in its circular made in file No. 267/141/88-CX.8, Circular No. 16/89, dated 1-6-1989 has stated that on such a certificate issued by the appraiser of custom posted in foreign post office Modvat credit of the CVD can be taken. Its surprising that both authorities did not seem to know of such a circular.3. The circular has been brought to my notice. Hence I set aside the impugned order and hold that the assessee is entitled to claim Modvat credit. The appeal stands allowed with consequential relief....

H.P.C.L. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC389

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The Commissioner of Central Excise Pune has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 6,18,05,323/- on clearances of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO), and High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD), and Motor Spirit (MS) on the basis of the difference between the duty amount shown on invoices and recorded from customers but not paid to the Central Excise Department, and the duty paid on the basis of out-turn documents (duty paid on the basis of dip taken before and after clearance) during the period June 1994 to May 1998. The details of the demand are shown in Annexure "A" to this order. The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has also been imposed in terms of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. We have heard both sides. We have also perused the calculation work sheet and find that in some cases the quantity of clearance shown in the out turn reports and on which duty was paid was in excess of the quantity shown in the despatch documents on which duty was recovered but not paid as required ...

Pichai Rakchue and P. Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The officers at the Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai detained in June 2002 a parcel consigned by Pichei Rakchue, appellant in appeal 37/03 of Bangkok. Thailand to P. Kumar at chennai, appellant in appeal 347/03. The parcel which declared to contain "fashion material" with no indication of value was found to contain 35310 carats of zircon of synthetic, valued at Rs. 78.50 lakhs. P. Kumar after some delay appeared before the authorities in response to the summons and said that he had orally placed orders on Pichei Rakchue whom he met through Rajagopal, a broker for supply of imitation jewellery, ladies fancy items etc. He denied having placed any orders on Rakchue for supply of zircon. Subsequently Rakchue wrote to the customs in September 2002 stating that the zircon had been sent to Kumar by mistake and asking for reshipment of the goods. Notice was issued for P. Kumar proposing confiscation of the zircon under Clause (m) and (l) of Section 111 and proposing penalty...