Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

NitIn N. Singapuri, Ajay Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC406

1. These appeals arose out the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Surat; Shri Pavan Kumar Poonamchand Jain is a gentleman worthy of emulation.He had a cloth shop in the name and style of M/s Trilok Enterprises somewhere in Surat, Gujarat. I hope he still has his shop and business after what the Providence and people have done to that part of the country. He is one of those rare people who believe that greatness does not lie in not offending an economic law, say Central Excise Act, but it truly lies in admitting the offence when caught/detected and reaching for ones own cheque book to write out post-dated cheques, in favour of government treasury, the exact amount of duty allegedly evaded. Rarely if at all, we come across offenders of the stature of Pavan Kumar Jain. They either do not confess or confess but retract or accuse the investigating officers of committing unspeakable horrors on them to extract confessions or if nothing else retrain from writing out post dated cheques in favour ...

Workwell Engg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT435Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue of classification of the disputed entity in this case i.e."Cabinet of domestic flour mill without electric motor & domestic flour mill with electric motor (Ghar Ghanti) is settled, by the S.C. in appellants own case [1995 (76) E.L.T. A23 (S.C.)] confirming the classification under 8509 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.Therefore appeal is taken up for final disposal after hearing the DR and considering the material on record since the appellants are absent in spite of notice.2. The appellants want the benefit of Boards Classification Circular No. 82/82/94-CX, dated 5-12-1994 stipulating the classification of the entity under 84.37. The present order impugned before us is dated 10-6-1999 and on a perusal of the same it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the contentions of the assessee as regards application of Board's Circular in this case. Since the decision of the Apex Court upholding the classification under 85.09 is subsequent to the Board'...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Jalaram Wood Craft (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants declared the product 'Veneer Board' classified under Sub-heading No. 4410.90 and claimed nil rate of duty. The sample on testing was found to be block board correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 4408.90 and duty at 20% was found to be leviable which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector after issuing show cause notice.The classification of the product has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Wood Craft Limited and Others. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeal) observed that benefit of modvat credit was required to be extended to the assessee and re-quantification of duty was required to be done and therefore he allowed the appeal of the assessee by way of remand for de novo adjudication.2. Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that classification has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under heading 4408.90 in favour of the department and benefit of modvat credit cannot be allowed when procedure to avail the same was not followed.Formica In...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Uni Abex Alloy Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT186Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the orders of CCE (Appeals) having classified - Manufactured and cleared by the respondent assessee under Heading 8417.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and setting aside the orders of the original authority classifying the said entities under Heading 73.07.00 with consequent duty demands and penalties. i) the notice dated 22.5.2002 was only for classification of product viz 'Centrifugally Cast Reformer Tube/Tube Fittings' under 730700 and order-in-original decided that issue only, the impugned order has travelled beyond the notice in having classified other products also. ii) Catalogue mentions 'the Reformer Tubes' have been manufactured over the years as per specification, designs and approved drawing and procedure of reputed international consultants. The catalogue also gives other details of composition of alloys etc and characteristics, these tubes are used in various plats. The product is a standard product and differ only in design and composition ...

Ahmednagar Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,92,916/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order has allowed the review application filed by the department, Shri. S.B. Awate, Ld.Consultant appearing for the appellants submit that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) in violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as the only date for personal hearing fixed on 28/11/2003, was sought adjournment on the ground that the appellant's company Director was busy for a marriage ceremony of his niece. He had made a adjournment request to Commissioner (Appeals) vide his letter dated 27/11/2003, which was faxed to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s office on the same day and also delivered by hand on 28/11/2003. The appellate authority has not considered the request for personal hearing and decided the matter ex-parte.3. Shri Awate, Ld. Consul...

Star Insulation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT274Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the Commissioner upheld the order of the lower authority who confirmed a demand for Rs. 1,05,880/- under Rule 571 read with Section 11A, imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and demanded interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act. The demand itself arose out of alleged wrong availment of modvat credit.The period in dispute is April 1992 - March 1993.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of varnishes and thinners. The appellant was working under modvat scheme but opted out of it on 1.4.1993 in order to avail of the SSI exemption under notification 1/93-CE. He reversed an amount of, Rs. 10,509/- being the credit involved in the input lying in balance as on 31.3.1993.3. Verification of private records of the appellant revealed that he had additional stock of inputs over and above the ones declared by him to be lying in stock at the time of reversa...

O.N.G.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC55

1. A demand of duty was confirmed on the ground of under valuation of C203 (Ethane/ Propane) manufactured & cleared by the assessee during the period impugned herein since duty was discharged on the ratio of Rs. 3,300 PMT for the product while the Ministry of Petroleum Central Government had re-fixed the prices for the different period & assessable value were to be re-determined. The duty demands worked out as per revised Assessable value due to re-fixation of the prices by Ministry of Petroleum have been discharged. The Ld Sr. Advocate does not press on merits of the demand of duty so made & paid except that they had sold the products on actual basis of price of Rs. 3300/- P.M.T. during the said period & no amounts in excess thereof have been received/recovered from the buyers. The delay, if any, in discharge of the duty at prices fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum is due to late receipt of the re-fixation decision. After receipt of the decision no delay on part of ON...

Vijay Silk House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are appeals which have been filed against a common order, one by M/s Vijay Silk House Pvt. Ltd. and the rest by the revenue. The appeal filed by M/s Vijay Silk House Pvt Ltd., against the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), questions the validity and the legality of the said order. From the facts of the case, it is revealed that 4 consignments of imported polyester fabrics were initially cleared duty free against a DEEC licence, presented by the appellants. On enquiry it was revealed that the import was made against an expired licence, by manipulation of the import document to show shipment within the validity period of licence.Therefore import of polyester fabrics was allowed only on payment of duty. The duty free import was held as not valid. It was observed by the Commissioner that the licence against which duty free clearance was sought had already expired and the goods imported against the same could not have been utilized to fulfill...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sukhrim Synthetics Processors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT351Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order set aside the order passed by the lower authority on the grounds that it is a non speaking order and passed without application of mind. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the lower authority while adjudicating the case has not given any justification or quoted any authority that as to how and why he had adjudicated the show cause notice which was answerable to Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III. He further found that para 2 of page 6 of show cause notice dated 13-9-96 does not cover the issue decided by the lower authority. It appears that the disputed issue is not of para 2 of page 6 but it is covered under para 12 (2) of page 6 of the show cause notice. These were the findings of the lower authorities.2. The Revenue contends that the Joint Commissioner was empowered to adjudicate the case even though the show cause notice was made answerable to Commissioner. Under Trad...

Jee Karyalaya Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing the Ld D.R., since appellants are absent and considering the issue, it is found- a) the plea of the appellant that Glazed Newsprint ordered by them for the first time was a wrong supply of coated paper by the supplier was considered by the Ld adjudicator, who has taken cognisance of the fact that Glazed Newsprint is much cheaper than variety of paper than the Coated paper and therefore the supplier would not have supplied Coated paper in lieu of Glazed Newsprint. This commercial reality has not been contested or rebutted by the appellants before us by any material and or submission. b) The case law of Tribunal relied by the appellants i.e. Prahlad Industries 1987 (29) ELT 57 & Akbar Badruddin Jiwani 1990 (47) ELT 181 may call for reduction of the fines and penalties but not total waiver thereof when the law as laid down in the case of Pine Chemical Suppliers 1993 (67) ELT 25 (SC) relied by the learned D.R is found to applicable in this case. In Pine Chemical Suppl...