Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Shroff Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC13

1. The appellants manufacture expanded polythene sheet bonded with PVC jute mat. This product is transferred from their Tarapur factory to their Andheri factory for carrying out further processes resulting in the manufacture of another product known as Assy floor mat. A show cause notice dated 18th June, 1996 was issued to the appellants, proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 1,96,000/- on the ground that the assessable value of the product was required to be worked out at Rs. 113.74 per square metre. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the notice and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld his order; hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. The appellants have sought for an adjournment by their letter dated 26.5.2004; however, since the issue is a simple one, we decline to grant adjournment and proceed to decide the case after hearing the learned DR and perusing the records.3. The appellants did not file price declaration as covered ...

Rajesh Rivet Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rivets made of different metals. The factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 19.8.99, who conducted various checks and found that though the goods were packed in gunny bags in ready to dispatch condition, the same were not entered in RG I statutory records. It was also noticed that the scrap which was duly accounted in RG I register was not actually present in the factory. Shri Vijay Duggad, Proprietor of the appellant, in his statement admitted that the scrap was cleared clandestinely. He also voluntarily disclosed that due to financial crisis he has sold rivets and bolts valued at approximately Rs. 40,000 - Rs. 50,000/- per month on cash basis. He, however, could not disclose the names of the purchasers but clarified that the same were local traders. In his subsequent statement recorded after a period of two months, he reiterated the same position.2. A show cause notice dated 27.01.2000 was issued to them proposing to...

Raymond Ltd., R.K. Shriyan and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications for waiver of pre deposit of duty and penalties and stay of operation of the order arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order the Commissioner demanded duty of central excise for Rs. 7,22,24,202/- under the provision of Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q, demanded interest under Section 11AB and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs on the Deputy General Manager and Rs. 50,000/- on the Asst. Manager Excise of the appellant company under Rule 209A.2. The issued relates to applicability of the benefit of notification no. 4/97 to the appellants' goods i.e. shoddy blankets manufactured out of shoddy woollen yarn. The Department contends that the above said notification does not cover blankets made out of shoddy yarn. The entry under the said notification exempts "blankets of wool from payment of duty, the value of which does not exceed Rs. 100/- per sq. mt...

Shivam Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application came up for hearing before us on 20.9.2002 we heard the application for stay as well as the appeal. The learned DR submitted that the appeal itself is not maintainable since the order impugned was dismissed on the ground of delay and the period of delay was beyond what could have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the relevant provisions. We, therefore, dismissed the application for stay as well as the appeal. The order was dictated in the Court.Later it was found that in the original of the final order one of us had not signed. Under these circumstances, the case is posted again for hearing today.2. When the case is called there is no representation on behalf of the appellant/applicant. Shri Hitesh Shah, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that it was beyond the period which could be condoned by him under the relevant provisio...

Star Auto Aircon Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT341Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Clande Bothello appeared for the appellant and Shri Arun Chopra, J.D.R. appeared for the Revenue. Shri Bothello states that the undertakes to pay duty/penalty but it is not possible for him to pay the same in lumpsum. He submits that he may be allowed to pay the same in suitable instalments. I direct the Adjudicating Authority to consider his request sympathetically and recover the duty/penalty etc.in reasonable instalments....

Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. 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. 4,99,58,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, who has confirmed the demand on the ground that in terms of Rule 173 G(i) (e), if an assessee commits three defaults in payment during the course of the financial year, he would not be allowed to use CENVAT Credit on payment of finished goods but shall pay duty through debit in account current (PLA) only.2. We have heard both sides. The submission of the applicants that the facility of utilisation of CENVAT Credit was taken away by the Assistant Commissioner without granting the applicants any opportunity of hearing before withdrawal of such facility prima facie does not advance their case, in view of the fact that, when a show cause notice proposing recovery of duty of the amount confirmed was issued, the Commissioner extended an opportunity of hearing to the applicants before confirming the duty. The language of th...

Keshavlal Naranji Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT144Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants imported a consignment of Chinese raisins grade IV old 1996 crop and declared the value to be US$ 1071 PMT CIF, from M/s. Orient Resources Co., Hong Kong. The goods were examined and found to be in consumer packing of 500 gms. The Port Health Officer (PHO) drew samples at the time of examination and reported that on test, goods have been found to contravene Rules 32(c), (e) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1995 (PFA Rules). Enquiries with Customs House, Mumbai, revealed that the Chinese raisins of grade B were allowed at Mumbai Customs House at the rate of US$ 1730 PMT CIF. Before the Commissioner the appellants agreed for loading the value to be loaded to US$ 1730 PMT CIF and also admitted the contravention of Rule 32(c), (e) and (f) of PFA Rules. The appellants waived show cause notice but wanted to be heard. During hearing, they req...

The Morarjee Goculdas Spg. Wvg. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT50Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the issue is valuations of samples of fabrics removed for supply to traders by a manufacturer of fabrics. The size of this cut pieces are not exceeding 50CMS in length. They were cleared as per value applicable to Fents which were being cleared by the appellant. Fents as per understanding of the trade and Central Excise are bona fide cut pieces/remmnants of textile from 45Cms. to 90 cms. in length. Revenue wants the declared assessable values to the rejected values, as applicable by applying proportionate value of good textile. The lower authorities have confirmed the demands based on the fact that samples are cut from good cloth, for which comparable prices are known. The rational behind calculation of value on the basis of average rate of rags/fents was not acceptable, since the cloth in the sample pieces would not change in class or category. The value should be as per good cloth which was capable of being sold in ordinary commercial...

Paras Wire Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order the appellants have been denied the benefit of modvat credit of Rs. 69,095/- and Rs. 19,945/- availed by them in respect of M.S. Round in Coils and Wire rods falling under Tariff Act 7213.90 and received from M/s. Hira Steels Ltd. The said inputs were received under the cover of invoices which reflected payment of duties on the same by way of making debit entries in RG 23 A Part II.Clarification was sought from suppliers jurisdictional Central Excise Office and verification report stated that the duty liability had been discharged from Modvat account by M/s. Hira Steels Ltd. even though the party is not eligible for the same as it has the features to be covered under Section 3(A) of CEA, 1944. The report also said that a show cause notice is being issued by the Commissioner to the supplier of the goods.2. Based upon the above report a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing denial of the credit and for imposition of penalty upon them. The Dep...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Light Publication Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the respondents claim of interest, the revenue has filed the present appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Asst. Commissioner originally rejected the refund claim of respondent, in part. On an appeal against the same order, Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the rejection. Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Order No. 392/96-C dated 25.5.96 allowed the refund claim filed on 18.6.86 for the period from 12.01.85 to 07.05.86 by holding that during the said period assessment was provisional and the refund claim is to be treated as having been filed in time. In terms of the said order of the Tribunal, Asst. Commissioner granted refund on 12.12.96. Thereafter the appellant filed a claim of Rs. 22.438.60 under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 towards interest for the period from 26.5.95 to 31.3.97. The said refund claim was rejected ...