Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Mohd. Idris, Sanjay Thakkar and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The learned advocate for the appellant and the learned D.R. were heard in these appeals on 25.11.2003 and the orders of appeals having been allowed were orally pronounced in the Court.2. When the matter was taken up for preparation of the detailed order, it came to notice that, the document of year of manufacture of the subject car, imported and impugned in these proceedings, which went to the root of these proceedings was alleged to be forged/fabricated. The matter was therefore proposed to be relisted. More so, as Revenue had filed a Miscellaneous application stating as follows: FACTS: - This appeal was heard by Hon'ble bench of Court-1 on 25-11-03 for final hearing. Issue involved is regarding sale of imported car by Mr. Mohammed Idris within 2 years of importation thus violating ITC provisions. Other issue was regarding make of the car which was claimed as 1997 by appellant where as deptt. claimed it as 2000, there by asking for less depreciation of value of the car and so dema...

Gujarat Narmada Valley Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides and perused case records including cited case laws.The issue involved in this case is whether CENVAT credit is admissible for LSHS used in the production of steam which in turn is used for manufacture of fertilizers, an exempted item. Shri R.C. Saxena, learned advocate appearing for the appellants cites the following decisions:- 1. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. CCE., Coimbatore - 2000 (122) ELT 861 (Tri.)CCE, Tirunelveli v. Sudarsanam Spinning Mills - 2004 (62) RLT 70 (CESTAT-Che.)CCE, Indore v. Indore Steel And Iron Mills Ltd. - 2003 (59) RLT 409 (CESTAT-Del.) 5. Navsari Oil Products Ltd. v. CCB, Surat - 2003 (55) RLT96 (CEGAT-Mum.) 6. Gujrat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - Order No. C-IV/666/WZB/2004 dated 17.2.2004.It is his claim that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the CENVAT credit is available in respect of the LSHS.2. Countering the arguments/ Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt.C.D.R. states that these decisions either relate to an earlier period wh...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tata Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard learned Jt. CDR, appellant not represented: Considered the material on record and it is found:- a. The issue is levy of Central Excise Duty for the period March 1992 to September 1994 on binder bath/paste prepared in the assessees premises and consumed captively since the year 1965. which are duty paid ingredients purchased and diluted batch wise by stirring not a wooden stick, manually, to get a homogenous mixture which is captively used for dipping the fabrics being manufactured by the assessee. The percentage of mix is not standard, the mix is claimed to be used immediately as it has a short shelf life, it is claimed to be not marketable and in fact not marketed. c. The lower authorities, rejected the applicability of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. case of Supreme Court, Boards instructions on such Binders not being excisable, on the finding as :- "....The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. or the Boards Circular dated 30.6.99 exem...

Transweigh (India) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT527Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereunder their appeal against the order-in-original was rejected. In the order-in-original, the demand of service tax of Rs. 3,12,320/- along with interest of Rs. 84,929/- was confirmed against them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 towards their liability for service tax. The service tax was levied on the appellants in respect of "the consulting engineer's services" rendered by them. The appellants challenges the order of the lower authority through the instant appeals.3. Briefly stated, the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of engineering goods falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, the appellants had also recovered an amount of Rs. 62,46,402/- during the period from 01/04/99 to 31/03/2001 from their clients towards technical service charges. These activities of rendering technical services were however not disclosed to both Central Ex...

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT302Tri(Mum.)bai

a. Issue is classification of goods imported by Indian Airlines especially item No. II on BE No. 004748 dated 14.8.90 consisting of 3 pieces declared is Disk for Computer & its eligibility to notification No. 298/76 dated 2.8.76. b. The entity in question is a Disk Pack for the specialized computer portion of the pilot stimulator & were required for Operational reasons of Indian Airlines, duty was paid & subsequently refund claim was lodged on basis of the re-assessement under notification 298/76 dated 2.8.76. The reassessment & refund was rejected. "... ... ...Computer disks are parts of computers and not of simulators. Even though this may be used for the purpose of simulator, but computer parts remains as computer parts to be assessed under CTH 8473. In fact the item was assessed in the BE under 8473 as claimed in BE and the assessment finalised. No other technical stand is possible now." d 'Hard Disc Packs' recorded media, while in the entity under consideration wo...

Harish Industrial Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.12,64,058/- arises out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise. The demand arises as a result of classification of Perforated Nickel Screens as parts of printing machinery, attracting duty at the rate of 15% under CET Sub-heading 8443.90 rejecting the applicant's claim for classification under CET Sub-heading 8843.10 which covers all goods other than parts of printing machinery/machines for used ancillary to printing attracting duty at the rate of 10%.2. We have heard both sides. We do not find that the applicants have made out a prima facie case on the merits of the classification, as the issue is as to whether the items in question are parts of machinery is debatable prima facie it appears that the goods will be covered under CET sub-heading 8443.90 as parts. However, we find that strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out on the arguments that the entire demand which covers the period from 16/03/1995 to 31....

Shri Mahesh B. Patel and Manisha Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT415Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant stay applications have been filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty of Rs. 8,62,317/- confirmed against the appellants, who are 100% EOU, besides, waiver of penalty of equivalent amount is also sought. Further, interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944 has been demanded and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Mahesh B Patel, Partner of the EOU.2. The dispute relates to the includability of deemed exports to determine the quantum of domestic clearances, which are permitted to be cleared concessional rate of duty from an EOU. The departmental authorities did not accept the proposition that the limit of 50% of the FOB value of exports would be reckoned by including the deemed export.The appellants have placed reliance on certain judgments of the Tribunal. However, we note that the deemed export being the clearances within the country, cannot prima facie be treated as export, to work out the entitlements of levy of concession...

Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT377Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present miscellaneous application is moved by the applicants seeking restoration of their appeal and stay application No.E/S/2090/02/Mum. It is noted that the Tribunal, vide Order Nos.C-III/133 & 134/03/WZB, dated 22-1-2003 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 234(T)], dismissed the appeal of the appellants along with stay application holding the same as not maintainable for the reason that a person who has signed, the appeal did not satisfy the requirements under the definition of manager. Through, the pre sent application, the appellants have pleaded that Mr. Kabir was indeed the authorised person to file the said appeal.3. We note that the appellants have also now produced a, Copy of the resolution of Board of Directors of the appellant's company authorising Mr. Kabir to file rectifying the Appeal E/2263/02/Mum. signed and filed by Mr. Kabir on behalf of the company before the Hon'ble CEGAT.4. In terms of the said authorisation now on record, the miscellaneous application is allowed and t...

Jai Sai Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby penalty of Rs. 3,77,779/- imposed by the adjudicating authority was confirmed. The penalty was imposed on the appellants on account of their failure to make the payment of duty on due dates under the compounded levy scheme in respect of goods falling under chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is stated that the duty of Rs. 1,66,667/- payable by 15.8.1998, was paid On 31.8.98, Rs. 1,66,667/- payable by 28.2.99 was paid on 1.3.99 and Rs. 44,445/-payable by 30.9.99 was paid on 1.10.99.The penalty was imposed under the third proviso to Rule 96ZO (3) of the Cental Excise Rules 1944.3. The appellants have stated that the loss of interest due to delayed payment works out to Rs. 1,250/- which has already been paid. In respect of the last 2 payments the delay of 1 day occurred, being a bank holiday and a Sunday. In respect of the first payment delay of 15 days has occurred....

Unique Indus. Handlers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT557Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal from the appellants is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby their appeal against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was rejected. Consequently demand of duty of Rs. 32,115/- and penalty of equivalent amount has been confirmed against the appellants.2. The allegation is that the appellants had cleared inputs (on which credit was taken) valued at Rs.8,850/- without payment of duty (or reversal of credit). The other allegation is that though they had taken credit on the full quantity of duty paid on inputs, they had subsequently issued debit notes to suppliers, without proportionately reducing the credit of Rs.30,555/- for the inputs shortages. The demand for the cumulative amount was confirmed by invoking larger period of limitation. The appellants have challenged the demand.3. The appellants are not present despite notice. Heard the DR who supports the orders of the lower authorities. The appellant's main challenge to the demand i...