Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC840Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both the sides for some time on the stay application, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,51,47,781/- for the period January, 2000 to June, 2001 and penalty of equal amount, we proceed to take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. It is the case of the department that the appellants herein who are manufacturers of mineral water with brand name "Bisleri" are required to include the deposits collected by them from their customers to the assessable value of the mineral waters, in addition to the printed MRF on the label affixed on 5 litres and 20 litres jars. The extended period of limitation has been applied against the appellants.3. The case before the Adjudicating authority was that the deposits are not required to be included as the cost of the reusable containers are amortized and included in the cost of the product itself. ...

Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT342Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 24,87,473/- which represents disallowed Cenvat credit on capital goods and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the firm and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon its Director, we found that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence after waiving duty and penalties, we hear and decide the appeals with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various iron and steel products such as M.S.Rods, Bars, Channels, Angles etc. falling under Chapter Heading 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period of dispute is January 1998 to February 2000. According to the department modvat credit was not admissible to manufacturers of hot re-rolled products on any of the inputs or on the capital goods in terms of CBEC Circular No. 326/42/97-C.X. dated 25.7.1997 and CBEC circular No. 522/18/2000.C.X. dated 3...

Khandesh Pipe Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the denial of modvat credit taken by the appellant of the duty should have been paid on some invoice, on the ground that the invoices did not bear any endorsement as to whether they were original, duplicate or triplicate.3. The contention in the appeal is that it is settled law that modvat credit cannot be denied on procedure failure, if there has been substantive compliance. The decision of the single member of the Tribunal in Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd v. CCE 1998 (97) ELT 127 is also relied upon.4. I do not think that the requirement of invoices being marked in a particular manner, coupled with the fact that requirement as the credit is normally to be taken on the basis of duplicate copy of invoice, is a simple technical procedure which can be waived. This procedure exists to enable the departmental officers to ensure that: misuse of the facility does not take place and for them to verify credit has been take...

Emmsons International Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT610Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 61,37,280/-arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (A) who has set aside the adjudication order of the Asstt.Commissioner and allowed the appeal of the Revenue, holding that the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 36/96-Cus dated 23.7.96 as amended by Notification No. 11/97-Cus dated 1.3.97 was not available to Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) imported by the applicants by 2 Bs/E dated 6.5.97 and 23.5.97 for 6960 M.T. and 7500 M.Ts respectively, in the absence of satisfactory end use certificate.2. We have heard both sides. In terms of sr.no.50 of the Table to the Notification, DAP for use as manure or for the production of complex fertilisers, is totally exempted from levy of Customs duty and additional duty . The Notification does not prescribe production of end use certificate. However, the applicants on their own furnished the undertaking at the time of filing of Bs/E that they shall file end use certi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. India Fibre Bag Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT609Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein are the manufacturers of sacks made out of HDPE woven fabrics coated with LDPE. Show cause notices were issued proposing classification of this goods under CET sub-heading 3923.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and proposing recovery of differential duty of excise of Rs. 8,70,030.61 for the period July 1991 to June, 1992. The demand was dropped by the Asstt.Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the Board's Order issued in terms of Section 37B by which classification of HDPE strips and tapes was directed under CET sub-heading 3920.32 and sacks therefrom under CET sub-heading 3923.90, was prospective and to have effect only from the date of issue of 37B order that is on 24-9-92. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue, wherein the contention is that the classification under Chapter 39 should take effect from 1989, when the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raj Pack Well v. Union of India [1990 (50) E...

Nayana S. Doshi, S.M. Doshi Huf, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 31,69,537/- confirmed against M/s. Nehasu Texprochem together with penalty of equal amount imposed upon them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri B.S. Doshi, proprietor of M/s. S.M. Auxichem, Shri Surendra B.Mishra, proprietor of M/s. S.R. Corporation and M/s. Chhaya Sales Corporation under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.2. The demand has been confirmed as a result of clubbing the clearances of the above units and M/s. Jigita Chemicals on the ground that the other units were dummy units floated by S.M. Doshi, proprietor of M/s.Nehasu Texprochem so as to split the turnover of his unit in order to remain within the SSI exemption limit.3. We have heard Shri Manoj Sanklecha and Shri Yogesh Patki, learned counsels and Shri Hitesh Shah, learned DR.4. Shri S.M. Doshi, expired on 1st Sep...

Tax Practitioners Benevolent Fund, a Public Charitable Trust Vs. Commi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)26; [2004]266ITR561(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj402

R. M. Lodha, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. A. S. Jaiswal, advocate waives service for sole respondent.3. By consent, Rule is heard finally at this stage.4. Tax Practitioners Benevolent Fund is the petitioner before us. It is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 having registration No. E-1484 (N). Inter alia, the said public trust has been constituted to provide assistance to necessitous persons or tax practitioners or their widows, children and dependent and carry on any other act for the advancement of general public utility without distinction of sex, colour, caste, creed or religion.5. The said public trust is also registered with Income Tax Department under Section 12(a) of the Income Tax Act. On 9-9-1988 the petitioner trust applied for exemption in the prescribed form under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax and placed before it the objects of the petitioner trust inter alia providing fo...

Terna Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC841Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad rejecting permission to the appellants to transfer input credit balance lying in their distillery unit to their sugar unit under the provisions of Rules 57AF of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. "Rules 57AF. Transfer of credit- (1) If an manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site or thefactory is transferred ton account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of thefactory to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such factory, then the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilised in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated factory (2) The transfer of the CENVAT credit under Sub-rule (1) shall be allowed only if the stock of inputs as such or in process, or the capital goods is also transferred along with the factory to the new...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Powerica Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Sekhon, Member (T) 1. The appellants had been imposed a penalty for availing certain credits under modvat. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of penalty. Revenue has been aggrieved and pled a in this appeal on the following grounds - "Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q on the ground that the assessee has reversed the credit before issue of SCN. This is not a sufficient ground for waiver of penalty especially as the assessee have apparently engaged wrongly availed credit for the year" 2. Heard both sides and considered the matter and it is found - a) Assessee had availed the credit of Rs. 67,6717- during January 1998 to November 1998 and on pointing out by Audit they reversed the same on 25.01.1999. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. b) The appellants have prepared a statement giving details of wrong availments, alleged, which is as follows - Sr. No. as per Ann. A Invoice No. & Date Reason for denial of credit ...

Gokul Refoils and Solvent Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT849Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs who has directed confiscation of Palm Acid Oil imported by the applicants herein with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 8 lakhs, together with applicable duty, and also imposed penalty as above-mentioned, as a result of misdeclaration of the imported goods which were found not to conform to IS Standards and it was therefore held that the goods were found to be other than as per the description as filed in the bills of entry.2. We have perused the written submissions filed by the applicant and heard ld. SDR. We find that there is no prima facie substance in the plea that the provisions of Section 23 which provides that duty shall not be required to be paid, if importers have relinquished title to the goods before an order for clearance of the goods for home consumption has been made, apply to penalty. In our view penalty is prima facie impos...