Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

C.C.Ex. Vs. Godrej and Boyee Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT431Tri(Mum.)bai

a. Commissioner (Appeal) found & observed that the assessee had availed the 10% credit reversed when goods were sent a job work but were recovered after a period of 180 days & the fact of receipt & dispatch being well documented, the dispute about the time period & the delay before 180 days would only be an infirmity but it should not cause & come in way of taking the credit when substantial procedure is compiled. b. Revenue is aggrieved since proviso of Rule 57F (4) & F (11) are contravened not one but seven instances to establish deliberate malafides by the Respondent who is a limited Company well conversant with Regulation & hence this appeal c. The Ld DR relied upon para 8 of Larger Bench decision of Shri Electronics P Ltd (2000 (117) ELT 571 d. It is found that SCN dated 1.05.2001 was issued to recover credit which as per chart in Annexure 'B' is beyond period of six months except in 3 cases. e. The period of sixty days or such extended period as the A...

Welldeep Metal (India), Chamundi Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

(i) M/s Chamundi International is a holder of Advance Licence No. 40078 dated 10.02.1995 Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai; (ii) The appellants imported duty free Stainless Steel Coils for manufacturing stainless steel utensils which are to be exported. (iii) The raw materials, i.e. stainless steel coils were imported through Chennai Port and was cleared by the Chennai Customs; (iv) In view of the expertise not available in Chennai for rolling the Stainless steel Coils as per the desired thickness and cutting of circles, two coils under Challan No. 1980 dated 21.09.1995 were despatched to M/s Rajputana Enterprises. (v) M/s Rajputana Enterprises, in order to get the work done, despatched them to Taloja District, Thane assigning the job to M/s Welldeep Metal (India) on the instructions for the purpose of temporarily accommodating the goods, they were off loaded in the premises of M/s Shahiwada Metal industries. (vi) While the coils were lying there i.e. in the premises of M/s S...

Gopinath Chem Tech. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeals, one by the manufacturing company and the other by its managing director are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority besides confirming the duty demand of Rs. 7,58,000/- against the company also imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on the company and a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the managing director. Hence these appeals.3. Though the appellants have tried to dispute the liability to duty, there is no material on record to hold that there was no case of surreptious removal as alleged in the show cause notice. Therefore I hold that the duty has been correctly confirmed against the appellant company, which has also been paid.4. As regards imposition of penalty of equivalent amount on the company is concerned it is pleaded that there is a finding of the adjudicating authority to the effect that provisions of Section 11 AC (enabling imposition of equivalent p...

Nirman Texturising Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are Texturisers of man made filament yarns. Exemption on Texturising by virtue of Notification No. 178/83 was withdrawn by the Budget proposals in the year 1994-95 & duty on crimped & Texturised yarn with effect from on 28.2.94 was required to be paid without the benefit of Modvat Credit under Rules 57A. They were availing Proforma credit under Rule 56A of the duty paid on yarn crimped and texturised, by them.2. By amendment to Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.3.93 by Notification No. 90/94 dated 25.4.94 they became entitled to exemption under S.S.I.Scheme. They filed a classification list on 12.5.94 & started availing the S.S.I benefit rate of duty under these notifications (i.e normal rate 10% on the first fifty lakh clearance).3. Facility of Performa Credit under Rule 56A was withdrawn on 20.5.1994 & eligibility of Modvat Credit was extended & granted to them by Notification Nos. 23/94 & 24/94 dated 20.5.94. They filled a declaration on 27.5.94 u...

Yogey Diamond and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC523

1. All these appeals are directed against one order passed in adjudication by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai dt.10.10.94. In the impugned order the Collecter confiscated a total of 5837.15 cts. Of diamonds seized from various persons valued at Rs. 10097710/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed varying amounts of penalty on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, In all the Collector confiscated 5,445.08 cts. from (a) M/s. Yogesh Diamonds, 233.1 cts, from (b) Shri Natwar M. Mendapara, 532 cts. from one (c) Dinesh M. Shah and 153.04 cts. from (d) Shri Prakash J. Modi, (b) and (c) above are not the appellants before us.2. Briefly the facts are that on information the officers of the Customs (Preventive) Collectorate Bombay searched the office/business premises of M/s. Yogesh Diamonds. There are two partners in this firm, Shri Rajeev K. Patel and Shri Karsan K. Patel are the main partners.During the search Rajeev K. Patel and some other per...

Panchamahal Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand of Rs. 6,09,028/- along with penalties imposed thereunder. The case against the appellants was that, the appellants recorded the production of their finished products namely "billets" and "bars" and "rods" on the basis of an estimation of weight made with reference to average weight noticed on sample weighments, without recording the actual weight of each and every product. It is the case of the appellants, that, as against the recording of production on an estimated basis, the products were cleared on payment of duty on the basis of actual weight. Consequently the recorded production when compared to clearances, revealed shortage.The departmental authorities considered the shortages as being the case of clandestine removal, which the appellants deny.3. The central issue to be decided is, as to whether ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Klasspak Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT365Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal from the revenue is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim of Rs. 5,662.50 was allowed. The respondents had made excess payment of duty erroneously and sought its refund which was denied by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30-12-96. On appeal against the rejection, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 28-5-99 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of rejection. Following the directions contained in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-5-99, the A.C. sanctioned the refund. The revenue reviewed the order of the A.C. sanctioning the refund and filed the appeal before Commissioner (A), who rejected the revenue's appeal vide the impugned order, which is under challenge.3. As can be seen from the facts narrated above the order of the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning the refund, was to give effect to the order-in-appeal dated 28-5-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).There is no...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Remi Process Plant and Machinery

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT348Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The main appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).The Revenue pleads that the said goods are classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 8431.00 of CETA which reads thus: Paris suitable for use solely for use or principally with the machinery of heading 84.25 to 84.30'.3. The Commissioner held them to be classifiable under 8428.00 which reads thus "Other lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery (For example, lifts, escalators, conveyors, teleferics)". Hence the dispute.4. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the goods are classifiable under 8428.00 for the following reasons. - Chartered Engineer Certificate that the said goods are machines on their own, each having a prime mover of its own. - Note 5 of Section XVI of CETA 1985 indicates that for the purpose of these notes, the expression machine means machine, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus or appliance cited in the headings of Chapter 84 or 85". The said goods are machines w...

Metal Box India Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR606; 2004CriLJ3265; 2004(3)MhLj528

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Applicant essentially has called upon me to review my order dated 5th April 2003 passed in Contempt Petition No. 20 of 2003 on the grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. The moot question, however, that arises for my consideration is, whether this Court, while exercising powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, or, for that matter, by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has jurisdiction to review its own order? To my mind, the answer is plainly in the negative. It is well settled that right to review is a right, which has to be specifically conferred by law made by the Legislature. Whereas, the Contempt of Courts Act makes no such provision. In that sense, if the proceedings were to be simpliciter under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court would have no review power so as to review its own order passed in the cont...

Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR528; 2005(101)ECC391; 2004(4)MhLj176

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The claim of the petitioner for rebate of duty amounting to Rs. 89.008,71 in respect of export of spare parts of diesel engines has been rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Refunds), Bombay, by his order dated 14th December, 1990. It is this order which is under challenge in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The order impugned before us is appealable is not in dispute. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for an appeal against the impugned order. The statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35 is not only alternative but efficient as well and we hardly find any justifiable ground for bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.3. However, since the writ petition remained pending before this Court for more than 13 years, we deem it proper to examine the legality and correctness of the order dated 14th December, 1990 ourselves inste...