Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Safex Fire Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT419Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri M.H. Patil, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and he contended that the Original order was passed by the Additional Commissioner and the appeal, before the Commissioner, was filed by the Deputy Commissioner. He Contended that in view of the provisions of Section 35E (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Flexoplast Abrasives (I) Ltd. reported in 2003 (55) RLT 233 (CEGAT. Mum).2. Shri A. Chopra, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he submitted that since the Commissioner (Appeal) has not given and findings on this aspect, it would be better if the appeal is remanded to him for re-adjudication and decide the same in view of the above decision.3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case law and the provisions of Section 35E(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, we are of the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. HemaIn Intermediates P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue has filed the instant appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the learned Commissioner. The respondents received inputs on 15/06/1998 from M/s Arti Inds. Ltd. on payment of duty in tanker of M/s Sai Krupa Transport Services. Credit was taken on receipt of inputs and thereafter the inputs were removed from the respondents factory to the factory of M/s Mohan Polyfab Ltd. Ankaleshwar, under a commercial invoice and delivery challans both dt.15/06/1998, which bare an endorsement, "material transit as per purchase from M/s Arti Inds. Ltd. vide Invoice No. 545 dt. 15/6/98. Since the truck was intercepted at Ankaleshwar and enquiries on 16/6/98 revealed that the time of removal of goods at 0800 hrs. on 16/6/98 under invoice No. 1 dt.16/6/98 which was debited in RG 23 Pt.II vide E.No.208/ dt.16/6/98, the inputs were seized, adjudication followed after due show cause notice and the Assistant Commissioner confiscated the contents of the tanker with an option for redemption f...

Yogesh Associates and J.M. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri.H.Hidayathulla, Advocate, Shri. T. Gunasekharan, Advocate and Shri.M.V.Ravindran, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. The learned counsels interalia contended that the impugned order has been passed based on conjectures and surmises; that the learned Commissioner has failed to arrive at a conclusion that the product in question is "manufactured or not manufactured"; that the learned Commissioner has failed to give his findings on many vital points raised before him which go to the root of the matter; that the Tribunal in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco has held that scented tobacco is not marketable as chewing tobacco and that the appellants product is analogous to that; that the impugned order has not been sighed by the Commissioner (passing authority); as such the same is void order. In this regard the learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Apple International v. Commissioner of Customs - 2000 (120) E.L.T.671 (Tribunal); that the department has utter...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Angan Prints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC137

1. This appeal from the revenue is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the facts of the case it is narrated that shop premises of the respondents M/s. Angan Prints were searched. On search 2603 sarees pcs (processed man made fabrics) valued at Rs. 3,88,168/- were seized on the grounds that the respondents could not produce any duty paying documents i.e. invoices issued by the processors evidencing payment of Central Excise duty. The seizure was made under the reasonable belief that the said goods were offending goods, liable for confiscation. In the subsequent adjudication it was held that the proprietor had admitted to have get the grey fabrics processed from certain processors and no duty was paid on such processed fabrics and there are no back-ups of any bills and invoices or duty paying documents.3. On this thin and flimsy evidence the adjudication proceedings culminated in confiscation of seized fabrics, imposition of r...

Cce and C Vs. Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC293

1. The instant appeal is filed by the revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The charge against the respondents was that, they had failed to account for 72.569 MTs of toilet soap valued at Rs. 34,01,106 in their statutory records. Consequently the said goods were seized and subsequently confiscated in the adjudication proceedings under Rule 173Q(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The duty of Rs. 6,80,221 paid at the time of provisional release was confirmed and the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 was appropriated towards redemption fine from the Bank Guarantee, executed against B-11 bond executed at the time of getting the goods released provisionally. Vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the findings of the adjudicating authority and, therefore, set aside the aforesaid Order-in-Original. The revenue's appeal challenges the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal and seeks restoration of the Ord...

Shri Suresh Shah Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant herein is aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon him, on the ground of dealing with non duty paid goods with knowledge that they were nonduty paid.2. The brief facts are that M/s. Twincity Organics Pvt. Ltd. ( TOPL) and M/s. Dyes Distributors India Ltd. (DDIL) manufactured camphor and other excisable goods. Certain private accounts were seized from their premises showing unrecorded production and clearances of camphor and other chemicals. The authenticity of the figures in the private records were admitted by the Directors, Officers and employees of these two companies, figures of clearances by private records were cross checked with the goods transported by various transporters and on comparison of the figures of the production with such figures shown in the official registers, it was found that the two companies had indulged in clearance without payment of duty. The modus operandi was narrated by Shri J.D.Vora, Excise In-charge of both the units....

Echjay Forging Ltd. and Shri S.M. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. These are two appeals against a common order. The appeal of the main appellants (who are the manufacturers) is directed against the impugned order of the Commissioned Appeals), who had confirmed the orders of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and rejected their appeal.Briefly stated on account of scrutiny of assessment documents and verification of records, it was alleged that:- (1) The appellants were required to pay a differential amount of Rs. 4,29,920/- in terms of the provisions of the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules 1944, being the difference between the amount of 8% of sale price of exempted goods cleared to defense and the credit amount actually reversed. (2) An amount of Rs. 12,592/-towards the duty involved on the amount of debit notes raised on their job workers for failure to return the scrap generated out of the raw material supplied to the job worker to appellants factory. (3) An amount of Rs. 63,002/- on account of excess credit taken ...

Vrindavan Carpets Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein exported a consignment declared as floor covering - 100% cotton handloom rugs(durries) claiming draw back under S.S No. 5702 which was found to be inadmissible as the goods on examination were found to be 100% bath rugs covered under the drawback schedule under S.S.No. 6306. The goods were held liable to confiscation under Section 113(iii), however, since they had been permitted to be exported on provisional basis and were therefore not available for confiscation, redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs was levied and a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed in terms of Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai against whose order the present appeal has been preferred.2. We have heard both sides. Chapter 57 of the Duty Drawback Rates Schedule covers Carpets and other Textile Floor Coverings and SS No.5702 covers cotton durries/cotton rugs/cotton chenille rag, rug, durries etc. attracting 6% of FOB value as draw back, whereas, C...

Otis Elevators Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC521

1. The miscellaneous application for modification has been filed by the applicants seeking modification of the stay order dated 31.10.2003, whereby the applicants were directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1.25 crores as against the duty of Rs. 3.13 crores and an equivalent amount of penalty. The matter was listed for compliance on 02.12.2003. By virtue of present application the applicants have inter alia stated in the application as under:- "6. The Appellant-Applicant submits that the basis on which the Impugned Order proceeds is factually erroneous. The Impugned Order states that the goods in question are not meant for captive consumption and in consequence thereof the Boards' Circular of 2003 does not apply in the present case. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order is set out hereunder. "6. We do not find that the Board's circular of 2003 comes into the picture. It relates to the valuation of the captively consumed goods. The goods under consideration by us are not capital go...

Cc and Ce Vs. Virat Ship Breaking Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC336Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue seeks enhancement of the amount of redemption fine and penalty levied and imposed upon the respondents herein on the ground that they started breaking of the ship M.V. Success Hope, imported by them even prior to payment of duty, holding that this amounted to clearance of imported vessel without payment of duty and that vessel was thus liable to confiscation with appropriation of Rs. One lakh out of the security in the form of Bank guarantee furnished by them, and in terms of the bond executed for provisional release of the vessel and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the importers.2. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice; hence we heard the Id. SDR and perused the records. We note that there was no removal of the ship out of the Customs bonded area. We also note that the explanation of the importers for commencing breaking the ship before payment of duty thereof was the likelihood of damage to the vessel and it was beached about 3000 feet away from the...