Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Paithan Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a processor of man-made fabrics falling under Chapter Heading 5409. The officers of Central Excise searched the premises of the appellant and seized 1,53,547 L.mtrs. packed in 58 bales and those in loose condition which were alleged to have been not accounted for in folding register or in RG 1. Shri B.H. Patil, one of the employees of the factory, in his statement dated 13-9-1995, admitted that the fabrics seized from the finishing room were not accounted in any statutory register. In his further statement dated 26-9-1995, he admitted that the fabrics seized on 13-9-1995 inter alia contained 68 bales of which 42 bales were in fully packed condition and 26 nos, needed to be scrapped only were lying in the factory premises and some quantity was lying in dying section. This statement appears to given complete account of all fabrics alleged to have not been accounted.3. From the records it appears that the grievance of the Revenue is that the processed fabrics have not...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. the Respondents herein, are engaged in the manufacture of moulded plastic goods for automobiles and electronic appliances. During the course of preventive check, the Central Excise Officers seized excess stock of finished goods valued at Rs. 10,43,615/- and Rs. 28,95,805/- found within and outside the BSR respectively, which was not entered in RG1 register, under the reasonable belief that the aforesaid goods were offending in nature and were liable to confiscation under provision of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The above seized goods were fully finished in ready for marketable condition. Also the goods were cleared by the party without debiting the Central Excise duty in RG23A Part II/PLA and thus committed offence in this regard which has also been admitted by the Manager and the Chairman of the said unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal dated 4-8-2003 has not appreciated the fact that the unrecorded stock was not entered in RG1 registe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vidyut Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC21

1.1 These two appeals filed by Revenue are being disposes by this common order after hearing both sides.1.2 The issue involved is the alleged shortage of stocks of inputs as well as finished goods found by the officers.1.3 The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has allowed appeal BPS (244)12/2003 dated 25.8.2003 & BPS (245) 11/2003 & 25.8.2003, after noting that the appellants were not allowed to cross examine the witness on whose statements the case has been sorted by Revenue and it was evident that principle of natural justice had not been observed by the adjudicating authority, besides other observation arrived by him.2.1 It is found that denial of cross examination will vitiate an order and it is required to be set aside. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was thereafter not required to allow the appeal by analyzing the material evidence, which is not tested as found by him in the cross examination. He should have remitted the matter to the original authori...

Narmada Macplast Drip Irrigation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC524

2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and avail modvat credit one of the two final products being manufactured is chargeable to nil rate of duty. The appellants was required to maintain separate account or not to take credit of inputs or reverse the 8% of the total price for the sale of the nil rate goods. They paid 8% amount of the price as shown in the invoices. However they were served with a show cause notice dtd 12/2/00 calling them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 3,79,976/- should not be recovered from them under Section 11D of Central Excise Act 1944. The lower authorities confirmed the demands as made. The Commissioner (Appeals) while finding the penalty was beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice set aside the penalty imposed however as regards the recovery it was held as follows. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant and find that the appellant has submitted that in view of Boards Circular No. 599/36/2...

Mukesh Dye Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Mukesh Dye Works were manufacturer's of MMF falling under Chapter 54 and 55 of the Schedule to CETA it had two partners during the material period i.e. October, 1988 to March, 1993. The Commissioner demanded duty of Rs. 23,93,843.87 under Section 11A(2) and imposed penalty of Rs. 23 Lakhs under Rule 173Q, He also confiscated land, building etc. and allowed it to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 1 lakh.He further imposed penalties on the two partners hence these appeals.2. Briefly the facts are that appellants surrendered their licence on 16-2-1993, as they did not wish to continue manufacturing goods. The facts that the licence was surrendered by the appellants on that date is not in dispute. One Shri P.D. Desai was working with the appellants as a Manager when the unit was functioning. He resigned from the firm and took up employment with M/s. Oswal Dying and Printing Works who happened to take the appellants mill on lease. M/s. Oswal obtained the Central Excise Registration and...

Sarvodaya Advertising Agency Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is an advertising agency granted Service Tax registration who had got cancellation of the said registration effective 1-4-98 due to the demise of the proprietors brother on 2-3-01. The tax has been paid along with interest and there was a delay in filing the Service Tax returns. The present appeal is only as regards the penalty and interest ordered. After considering the submissions and the facts of this case and relying upon the decision in the case of (CEGAT Mumbai) and CCE, Calcutta v. B.L. Company 2005 (1) STJ 1109 (CEGAT Calcutta) Following the same the penalty in this case is reduced to Rs. 1000/- after confirmed the other liabilities. Appeal partially allowed in above terms....

Modipon Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nch

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC240

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 19,86,208, we found that it is possible to decide the appeal Page 242 itself at this stage; hence after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to take up the appeal for final disposal with the consent of both sides.2. Vide the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) has set aside the order of the asstt. commissioner by which refund of the amount above mentioned was sanctioned to the importers/respondents, and allowed the appeal of the revenue, holding that the bar of unjust enrichment is attracted even in the case of import of capital goods.The appellants submit that vide order dated 24th February, 1998, the asstt. commissioner sanctioned the claim but the amount was directed to be credited to the consumer welfare fund as there was no documentary evidence of non passing of the incidence of duty to any other person.The importers' appeal was allowed by the commissioner (A) by way of remand, as the ...

Enzo-chem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that the impugned goods were exported initially and then re-imported and subsequently cleared for home consumption. The appellants have claimed refund of additional duty of customs equal to excise duty paid at the time of importation of the impugned goods on the ground that no Cenvat credit has been taken and the impugned goods have suffered the duty a second time at the time of clearance for home consumption.Though, the appellants have suffered additional customs duty and again excise duty, I find that they have not claimed refund of the excise duty. Their claim is for refund of additional customs duty and there is no legal provision to allow the same. As such, the appeal is rejected....

Udaan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides and found that they agree that in this case the entire amount of service tax was deposited by the service provider.However, this deposit has been made in non-designating bank which, since then stands transferred to the appropriate bank branch.2. The impugned order of the lower authorities confirming the tax demand and the penalty therefor is required to be set aside with directions to rehear the appellant to verify the fact of the transfer involved herein, in terms of Pay Accounts office letter dated 3-4-2003 and grant the due discharge of tax certificate only if transfer is found in order. No penalty is called. Appeal allowed as remand to the original authority....

Nair Coal Services 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 service tax of Rs. 2,78,39,954/- and penalties of Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76, Rs. 7000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 500/- under Section 75A of the Finance Act, 1994 arises out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who has dismissed the appeal of the appellants against the confirmation of service tax demand by the Dy. Commissioner, on the ground that they failed to comply with the direction of deposit of 50% of the amount.2. None appears for the applicants in spite of notice; hence we heard the ld. DR and perused the records. The demand has been confirmed holding the applicants liable to pay service tax as clearing & forwarding agents. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his stay order has directed pre-deposit of 50% of the tax amount and furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the balance amount of service tax. The issue as to whether the applicants are liable to service tax as clearing & forwarding agents, will be gone into by us whe...