Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Meck Lubricants and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. This appeal is against rejection of refund claim as time barred. The appellants had cleared on payment of duty certain quantities of their final product some time in 1998. The customer found the goods defective and hence returned the same. The appellants, upon receipt of the returned goods, gave the requisite intimation to the Department as required under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The date of receipt of the returned goods in the appellant's factory is 23.2.1999.Later on, the goods were re-processed and cleared on payment of duty in December 1999 and January 2000. Meanwhile, the appellants filed a refund claim on 23.8.1999 in terms of Rule 173L. The original authority rejected the claim, holding that the claim was premature inasmuch as there was no section-time-payment of duty by them. The ground taken by the said authority for rejecting the refund claim, however, did not find favour with the first appellate authority. The latter authority, however, found the refu...
Ratnamani Metal of Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. The appellants are contesting the demand of Rs. 1,73,504.80 confirmed against them through the orders passed by the lower authorities under Rule 57H (of Central Excise Rules 1944) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 (Act). The amount in question relates to 8% of the value of the fully exempt final goods.3. The most formidable challenge to the demand is made on the ground that the show cause notice proposed recovery of the amounts as Central Excise duty. Whereas what is sought to be recovered is an amount equivalent to 8% of the price of the finished exempt goods. The appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in their own case, wherein vide final order No. C-II/162/WZB/2003/ dated 22.10.2003, it was held that the amount payable under Rule 57CC is neither duty nor credit and therefore notice cannot be issued under Section 11 A.4. The revenue on the other hand has placed reliance on the Cegat judgment in the case of Dujodwala Resins Terpenes Ltd v. Co...
Shri P.C. Agarwal Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. The appellant has been penalised under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962, on the grounds of being involved in the acts of abetment in a case involving importation of man made fabrics against advance licences. In the adjudication proceedings it was held that the importers M/s Anand Corporation had violated the non-transferability clause of the advance licence, in the absence of any permission from the licensing authority on record as required under para 383(2) of the Hand Book of the Imports/Exports procedures 83-84.2. In the 2 adjudication orders passed against the importers M/s Anand Corporation appropriate penalties were imposed, and the imported goods were also subjected to absolute confiscation. In the instant appeal there is no challenge to the said findings. However, the penalties imposed on the appellants in the said orders were challenged through two separate appeals before Cegat. Both there appeals were allowed and the matter rounded to Commissioner for deciding the c...
Cce Vs. Vidya Decor (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. In this appeal of the Revenue, the challenge is against grant of Modvat credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the respondents in respect of inputs received by the respondents in their factory under cover of dealer's invoices during the period 30.6.1994 to 30.7.1994.The lower appellate authority held, by relying on the Tribunal's decision in Bengal Safety Industries v. CCE, Calcutta-I [1997 (92) ELT 81 (T)] and another decision of the Tribunal, that the requirement of registration of dealer for the purpose of issuing modvatable invoice was only procedural and Modvat credit was not to be denied for want of such registration.2. Heard both sides. Learned DR for the appellant submits that the view taken in the cases relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been overruled by the Tribunal's decision in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v.CCE, Kanpur [2000 (116) ELT 364 (T). The Larger Bench held that the requirement of registration of dealer for the purpose of issuing modvatable invoices ...
Target Marketing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
(a) Classification of U.P.S. is the issue involved and the same has been settled under Heading 85.04 by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal as in the case of Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2001 (129) ELT 605 (Tri-LB), which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 2003 (152) ELT 35 (SC). Therefore, the findings as regards classification cannot be different than under Heading 85.04. (b) However, it is found that the other question, of the appeal being barred by limitation or otherwise, is required to be redetermined, in view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 2858 of 2003, wherein vide paras 2 and 3 has ordered as follows: "2. In this view of the new emerging circumstance, he fairly concedes that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter need to be remitted back to the Tribunal for enquiry afresh and if necessary for getting or directing reconst...
Century Rayon Chem Plant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. These appeals are against denial of Modvat credit on Chlorine containers by the lower appellate authority. The appellants are also challenging the penalty imposed on them.2. Examined the records and heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they had consistently claimed capital goods credit in respect of Chlorine containers for the material period; that when the department held the goods not to be eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the appellants filed a declaration in 1996 under Rule 57G declaring the goods as inputs for Modvat credit; that the authorities below did not examine this claim of the appellants; and that the matter requires to be remanded. Without prejudice to this submission, counsel submits that the question whether Chlorine containers could be considered to be eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q has been settled by the Tribunal. In this connection, counsel has cited the following decisions : 1) DCM Shrir...
Vikram Plasticizer Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. The appeal is against denial of modvat credit of Rs. 15,319/- on 2-ethyl hexanol (hereinafter referred to as "the said input") to the appellants by the lower appellate authority.2. Apart from the grounds of the appeal, some written submissions are seen to have been placed on record by the authorized signatory of the appellants. It appears, they have waived the right to be heard in person. I have examined the grounds and the written submissions. I have also heard the learned D.R.3. The credit in question was taken some time in August, 1987 on the basis of a gate pass dtd. 06/08/1987. A show-cause notice was issued on 01/07/1989 to the party proposing to disallow the credit on the ground that it had been taken without requisite declaration. The allegation was that the said input was a chemical different from 'octanol' named in the declaration filed by the party. The original authority allowed the credit to the assessee, holding that the proposal in the Show Cause Notice to recover th...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mudra Steel and Alloys Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. The respondents are manufacturers of steel ingots of Chapter 72 of the C.E.T.A. Schedule. On 23/06/2000, officers of Central Excise found a shortage of finished goods (16.244 MTs) in their factory after a physical verification of stock. The party paid up the duty of excise on the quantity found short. Subsequently, the department issued a Show Cause Notice on 07/06/2001 to demand duty on the above quantity and appropriate the above payment towards the same. The notice also proposed to change interest on duty under Section 11AB as also to impose penalty on the party under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Snow Cause Notice was contested. The Original Authority, which adjudicated the notice, confirmed against the party the demand of Rs. 27,938/- and appropriated the above payment towards such demand. The authority also demanded interest on duty under Section 11AB and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 27,938/- on the party under Section 11AC. In the appeal preferred by the aggri...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hitkari Fibres Ltd., Shri M.J.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. This is a revenue appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents are not present through the present hearing was fixed on the basis of specific request of the respondents.3. The three appeals are directed against a common order and are therefore decided together, M/s. Hitkari Fibres Ltd. (the main respondents) are the manufactures of various types of floor coverings.On 19.1.99, during the surprise visit by the Central Excise officers the following discrepancies were noticed in the stock:- (a) Shortage of raw material involving Modvat credit of Rs. 1,08,007/-. (b) Shortage of finished goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 15,233/-. (d) Finished goods found in excess involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,296/-. (e) Loss of finished goods and raw material in fire on 11.4.98. Subsequent claim of Rs. 16,05,000/- received from the insurance company involving Central Excise duty of Rs. B2 4,49,073/-.4. The show cause notice issued to the res...
Orbit Pharma Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
1. The instant appeal is directed against the confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 1,18,264/- and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. The order of the adjudicating authority has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the instant appeal to the Tribunal.3. The duty has been demanded on account of shortages noticed in the stock of inputs on which the appellants had taken credit under modvat.Though in the statement recorded it has been admitted that the missing inputs have been removed in a clandestine manner in the adjudication proceedings a defence was taken that certain consumption which had occurred during the months of January 97 and February 97 had remained to be debited. The appellants are claiming that if this quantity of consumption was to be taken into consideration, the actual duty on the shortages remaining unexplained will work out to Rs. 35,549.96 and not the amount of 1,18,264/- as worked out by the department. This aspect has been d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »