Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Maganlal Mohanlal JaIn and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC24

1. Pursuant to an intelligence developed that M/s. Paul Tex (P) LTd., Ahmedabad, (formerly known as M/s. R.K. Taneja Fashion Fabrics (P) Ltd.) engaged in the manufacture of processing fabrics were evading duties levied on the processed fabrics, being manufactured there, by illicit duty free clearance of the same, the processing factory and other places connected were searched. Processed fabrics were found short in the factory premises and incriminating documents were recovered. Enquiries were made and proceeding initiated which resulted in the order now impugned, by which, the Ld. Commissioner has ordered - i) Duty demand of Rs. 1,11,32,599.65/- on M/s. R.K. Taneja Fashion Fabrics (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad. ii) Duty demand of Rs. 73,492/-, Rs. 1,08,185/- and Rs. 1,26,30,443/- on M/s. Paul Tex (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad. iii) Penalties of Rs. 1,11,32,599.65/- on M/s. R.K. Taneja Fashion Fabrics (P) Ltd., Rs. 1,28,12,120/- on M/s. Paul Tex (P) Ltd., Rs. 50 lakhs each on S/Shri Bodhraj S. Pal and K.B...

Vakharia Valkal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order remanded the matter to the original authority with a direction that the Assistant Commissioner to consider refund of Rs. 30,000/- on production of an indemnity bond as per treasury rules in cases where the original TR6 challans are lost. It is the plea of the appellant that while dealing with their appeal the Commissioner has not given any finding whether interest on delayed payment of additional duties of excise under Additional Duties of Excise (goods of special importance) Act, 1957, is demandable on the duty not paid.2. The facts briefly are that the appellants manufacturers of processed fabrics falling under chapter heading 5406.00 of CETA. At the material time i.e. on 19.7.91 they were liable to pay Rs. 2,24,559.63 towards Additional Duty of Excise, The Central Excise officers seized certain stocks of textiles from them. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner who while confirming...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. N.D. Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC424

1. The Revenue's appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, who in the impugned order set aside the order of the original authority.2. The facts briefly are that the Central Excise officers conducted a search of the shop premises of M/s N.D. Textiles. The proprietor of the shop is one N.R. Kamra. He was present during the search. He is engaged in the purchase and sale of MMF. He received fabrics from different mills since March 1995. When the stock of fabrics was challenged it was found that Rs. 9,724.50 L.mts of MMF was in excess of the book balance.He explained that he purchased grey fabrics from the open market and got them processed through different mills of the city, namely: (1) Madhusudan Silk Mills, (2) Om Prakash Jai Prakash Dyeing and Printing Mills and (3) Luthra Dyg. & Prg. Mills. The officers seized the excess stock as the prop admitted that he got grey fabrics processed and received them without the cover of Central Excise invoices and without ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Valson Polyester Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC134

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order of the lower authority. Cross objections were filed by the respondents, M/s. Valson Polyester Pvt.Ltd., Vapi.2. The mailer pertains to switching over from proforma credit to modvat credit The respondents manufactured texturised yarn of polyester falling under chapter sub-heading 5402.32. The unit was availing of proforma credit under Rule 56A. Proforma credit scheme was withdrawn with effect from 20.5.94 and Modvat scheme was instructed under Rule 57A. The respondents however continued to work under proforma credit scheme as they were not aware of the charge till 31.5.1994. Thereafter they filed declaration under 57G as required under the new scheme and under the transitional arrangement sought to utilise the credit available to them as on 24.5.1994 for payment of duty under Modvat scheme. The Assistant Commissioner in his order denied the same demanded in all Rs. 6,71,943/- towards d...

Mac Laboratories Ltd. and U.S.V. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue involved in this case is the classification of certain entities, which are formulations of vitamins with other substances, expectorants and stabilisers etc. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has come to the following conclusions to determine the classification to be under Heading 29.36 of CET 1995 and not under Heading 3003.10 thereof. (i) The cartons and labels containing description of the product if applied with reference to chapter note 2 (1) of Chapter 30, it appears that the said products are other than medicaments not aimed to cure any ailment and therefore do not satisfy the condition of chapter note. (ii) That the products, which are marketed/sold through chemist or druggist under purview of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, should not always be medicines. Mere administration in doses in particular quantity as done in case of medicines does not qualify the products to fall under Chapter Sub-heading 3003.10. The labels of products clearly suggest that th...

Siemens Nixdorf Information Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)STR15

1. The stay application arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has rejected the appellants' appeals before him and upheld the order of the lower authority.2. The matter relates to delayed payment of Service Tax for the month of November 98 and December 98. The original authority demanded interest of Rs. 8,181/-. On the delayed payment and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,32,253/- on the appellants under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1944 as imposed a further penalty of Rs. 8,000/- for each of the quarter/half yearly ST~3 Return filed by the appellants under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants.3. The grounds for seeking waiver of pre-deposit and interest are that the authority bellowed laboured under the belief that penalty prescribed under Section 76 is the minimum that could be imposed. In fact the penalty is maximum presented. The lower authority went under the assumption that penalty is man...

The Mogaveera Vyavasthapaka Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT476Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 32,700/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the appeal arose out of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.2. After hearing both sides for a while, it is decided to waive the pre-deposit of penalty and take up the appeal itself for consideration.3. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a charitable organisation engaged in several activities which are mainly concerned with community welfare work. They have also got a Sabhagriha (hall) which is mainly used for catering activity of school. However, on holidays the said hall is rented out to their members. The managing committee, which looks after the affairs of the Trust, consists of senior citizens. Service tax on Mandap keepers was introduced for the first time through Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1997 which came into force from 1.7.1997. The appellants' main activity being what it was, they were ignorant of the fact that service tax is payable by them o...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Shri M.H. Dhodia

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order set aside the penalty of Rs. I lakh on the respondent imposed by the lower authority under Rule 209A read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts are that the respondent was the manager of M/s. Vinay Enterprises (VE) and also a working Director of M/s. Uniflex Cables Ltd, When the Central Excise officers visited the factory of M/s. Vinay Enterprises on 5.9.95 they found a certain quantity of G1 wire/strips in the factory. The respondents disclosed that the said goods were received from M/s. Uniflex Cables Ltd. without the cover of any documents, for recoiling them. He further informed that a person comes from M/s. Uniflex Cables Ltd. U'gaon and collects their recoiled material in their factory without Central Excise documents. Thus it appears clear that excisable goods are received and sent from the factory, of which he is the Manager, without followin...

Modest Maritime Services Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC435

1. M/s Modest Shipping (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. are the agents of the vessel M.T. Sigiri and in that capacity they filed an IGM No. 1992 dated 8.7.98 at the port of Mumbai with 'Nil' Cargo declaration. The said vessel was engaged in towing a vessel by name Meng Kiat to Alang Port. However Sigiri developed engine trouble off Mumbai Port on account of bad weather and lack of bunkers. As no help was forthcoming in spite of distress signals, the master of the vessel disconnected the tow wire and abandoned the tow vessel Meng Kiat. The vessel (Meng Kiat) drifted to a place at a distance of about 2 km from Navapur, Arnala circle, Bassein Division. Where the same was seized on 6.7.98 by the customs officers on the ground that Navapur was not declared as a landing place under the Customs Act on the Cargo in the shape of the vessel is liable to confiscation.2. These being the circumstances the Commissioner imposed a penalty Rs. 2,50,000/- on the owners agent of Meng Kiat, M/s Modest Shipping Agenc...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Tuni Textile Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT245Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order of the lower authority.2. The respondents is a manufacturer of excisable goods falling under chapter heading 54 of CETA. The officer on visit to the factory found that 7118 kgs. of POY received in the factory was not entered in RG 23A Part-I . The officers find that the said POY was duty paid. They seized the said goods on the ground that it was not entered in RG 23A Pt-I.3. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 173Q(1) on the ground that the assessee did not account for excisable goods stored by him in the factory, confiscated the plant, land and machinery etc. as imposed penalties.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the following grounds in para 5 of this order. "I have considered the submissions made. I find that on the date of seizure of the POY in question, it was found in the factory premises an...