Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Artson Engg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant has fabricated certain structures in the premises of M/s. HPCL Ltd., During the course of such fabrication scrap was generated from the modvated inputs which were required to be cleared on payment of appropriate duty. A consignment of scrap valued at Rs. 2,47,910/- involving duty of Rs. 37,187/- was being removed by the appellant and transported out of the HPCL premises without appropriate duty paying documents. This consignment was intercepted and has been ordered to be confiscated and redeemed on fine and duty. The fines and duties on this consignment have been determined to be paid by M/s.HPCL. The appellant herein has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The Ld.Advocate for the appellant relies upon the case of V.Abdul Rehman Musaliyar v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2001 (133) ELT 145 (Tri.-Bang.)] to submit that since the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act are pari materia Rule 209 of ...

Bajaj Hindusthan Limited Vs. the Joint Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92ITD411(Mum.)

1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee, for the Asst. Year 1989-90.The appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A)-II at Mumbai dated 1-5-2000 and arises out of the order dated 26-9-1997 passed Under Section 155(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Assessee had made additions to its plant and machinery of its Cement unit at Udaipur, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. According to the Assessee, the said investment amounting to Rs. 3,47,89,596 qualified for investment allowance available Under Section 32A. In fact the claim was made by the Assessee in its computation of income. Investment allowance was granted by the Assessing Officer including an allowance of Rs. 69,57,919, pertaining to the additions made in the Cement unit at Udaipur.3. The Assessee had sold its Udaipur Cement unit to M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited during the relevant previous year except certain machineries which were leased out by the Assessee. On this, the Assessing Offi...

Harish Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT199Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute relates to as to whether or not, the appellants were legally correct in utilising credit amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- of Basic Excise Duty (BED) towards payment of Additional Excise Duty (AED) (Textile & Textile Articles Act, 1978).The Assistant Collector had allowed the appellant's claim, whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal from the revenue reversed the order and denied the credit. Hence the appeal.3. The appellants have claimed that in terms of paragraph 2 of the Notification No. 5/94 C.E(NT) dated 01/03/94, it has been provided as under :- 2. "the credit of specified duty allowed in respect of inputs shall be utilised towards payment of duty of excise leviable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), on the final products or, as the case may be, on the inputs, if such inputs have been permitted to be cleared under rule 57F of the said Rules. P...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., had removed certain capital goods during the period October 99 to December 99, on reversal of capital goods modvat credit equivalent to the credit amount taken at the point of receipt of these capital goods in their factory.2. The dispute is, as to whether, the respondents were required to reverse the credit at a rate which is applicable on the date of removal of the said capital goods. Obviously, the rate of duty on the date removal was higher than the rate at which the credit was taken initially. Consequently it was held that, the appellants are required to reverse the credit on applying the higher rate. Accordingly, the duty amount of Rs. 9,38,016/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) however, disagreed with the adjudicating authority and after following the ratio of the judgme...

Ankur Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

a) The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the yarn admittedly doubled before being used captivity for manufacture of fabrics, would be liable to pay duty, since notification 35/95 amending by notification 84/95 dated 18.5.95 added a proviso that the exemption availed under S.No. 1 of notification 35/99 was not available since the notification should not apply to clearance of yarn from a factory having facilities (Involving place & equipment) for producing single yarn. Which the appellant had demands. Notice were confirmed. The plea of admissibility of benefit of not 121/94-CE dated 11.8.94 sought by the assessee was rejected by CCE (Appeals) on the following findings- "... ..........I find that this is a new contention raised by the appellants which cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. Moreover, had the appellant claimed the benefits of these notification along with notification 35/95, perhaps the legal portion would have been disposed. b) The notices of dema...

Micromechanics P. Ltd., Vikram M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard the Ld. DR, the appellants being absent and considered the applications.2.(a) It is found that the order is admittedly received on 7.7.2003 and the appeals have been filed on 1.3.04 the delay has been explained after admitting that the appeal was required to be filed on or before 7.10.2003, on the grounds of the appellant Director to be suffering and being very ill and bed-ridden at the material time, resulting in his inability to even attend the office during the said period. An Affidavit has been placed on record stating as follows: "I the undersigned, Vikram H. Pandya, Indian Hindu, am a director of M/s. Miscromechaincs Pvt. Ltd. I solemnly affirm that, I Have received the copy of the order in appeal bearing No. 241 to 24/2003/137 to 140 (Raj)/Commr(A)/Raj dated 3.7.2003 on 7.7.2003, but due to my ill health I was advised to have bed rest for the said period. I was not attending the office and hence though my office has received the said order in appeal, I could not initia...

Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT535Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.2. The facts are that the appellants imported second hand goods viz.IMX analyser and AXYM analyser and sought clearance under bill of entry No. 400175 dated 15.10.2003. The appellants claimed that the said goods are used for diagnosing blood testing, for testing and to run kits for detection of hepatitis, AIDS, cancer diseases etc. They contended that the goods under import are capital goods and hence freely importable.Para 2.17 of Exim Policy 2002 - 2007 stipulates that all second hand goods are restricted goods for imports. However, under para 2.33, import of second hand capital goods, which are not more than 10 years old can be allowed freely. The Commissioner's contention is that the goods under import are not capital goods and therefore are restricted.Having held so, he confiscated the good under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 28 of the Customs ...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Chandan Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order accepted the claim of the respondents that, in terms of letter No. TS/36/94-TRU dated 01/03/94, the respondents were eligible to take deemed modvat credit on the steel ingots and re-rollable materials.2. The respondents were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE and paying concessional duty thereunder. After exhausting the concessional duty payment level, in respect of clearances up to Rs. 75 lakhs, the respondents paid full duty on the finished goods and continued to take the modvat credit on deemed basis in terms of the order of the Government dated 01/03/94 referred to above.3. The dispute is as to whether the respondents could be termed to be the unit availing of the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE in respect of clearances beyond the slab value of Rs. 75 lakhs. En the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has made a distinction tha...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Victor Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a revenue appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order accepted the claim of the respondents that, in terms of letter No. TS/36/94-TRU dated 01/03/94, the respondents were eligible to take deemed modvat credit on the steel ingots and re-rollable materials.2. The respondents were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE and paying concessional duty thereunder. After exhausting the concessional duty payment level, in respect of clearances up to Rs. 75 lakhs, the respondents paid full duty on the finished goods and continued to take the modvat credit on deemed basis in terms of the order of the Government dated 01/03/94 referred to above.3. The dispute is as to whether the respondents could be termed to be the unit availing of the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE in respect of clearances beyond the slab value of Rs. 75 lakhs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has made a distinction tha...

Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd., Shri D. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant in appeal E/1461 is a company, (here in after referred to a HCGL for short) they are engaged in the Purchase & Sale of exciseable goods. They entered into an agreement with their C & F against M/s Musale Enterprise (herein after referred to a ME for short) to receive different chemicals from various parties as ordered by HCGL. The goods were tested thereafter, ME, as per direction of HCGL relabelled the containers by removing the original labels and affixing labels indicating HCGL suggested names as intimated to them. The relabelled goods were thereafter sent on challans to different parties as per direction of HCGL.2. The officers visited the godowns of ME and seized certain goods.This activity of relabelling was considered to be 'manufacture' in view of chapter notes 6 & 5 respectively of chapter 34 x 38 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tribunal Act 1985 & this actual was considered to be conducted in violation of the Central Excise Law. Duty demand...