Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Vulcan Industrial Engg. Co. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri B.D. Ranaclive, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R for the Revenue, we find that the demand of duty of Rs. 2,96,774 is not sustainable on the point of limitation, inasmuch as the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has himself observed, in the impugned order, there was no mala fide on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty. However, the said observation has been made by him in respect of penalty only, while invoking the larger period of limitation. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 6 of the impugned order: 6. As regards the question of time bar is concerned, the appellant did not inform the department that in spite of their having written to the concerned Assistant Commissioner for a clarification, they are going to clear the goods without payment of duty as they had not received any clarification. Moreover, central excise law is very clear that no manufactured goods...

Gkn Sinter Metals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal by M/s. G.K.N. Sinter Metals Ltd., the manufacturer of sintered products, against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 26.2.2004.2. The present case traces its origin to a show cause notice dated 24.3.2000, proposing to disallow the credit of duty of Rs. 9,50,108/- availed by them suo motu under Rule 57U besides contemplating penal action under Rule 173Q.3. In their reply they had stated that they did not raise any fresh credit in RG23C Part II but had only restored the credit after debiting equal amount of duty from RG23A Part II as suggested to them by the CERA audit party. A rectification was however made before issue of SCN.4. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter on 5.12.2001 allowed the credit but imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.When they went in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the latter justified the penalty imposed by the Dy. Commissioner.5. Being aggrieved, they have now knocked the doors of the Tribunal.Their ma...

Beekaylan Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of Texturised Polyster Filament Yarn against the Commissioner (Appeals) Order dated 28-11-2003.2. In brief, the appellants had availed Modvat Credit on dyeing plant on 30-5-97 amounting to Rs. 3,90,000/-. However, w.e.f. 9-6-97 they filed a declaration for availing the concessional rate under Notification No. 4/97, dated 1-3-97 (as amended by Notification No.19/97, dated 11-4-97 and 34/97, dated 6-6-97).3. As the condition No. 15C(ii) of Notification No. 34/97 foresees no availment of credit under Rule 57A or 57Q of Central Excise Rules, a show cause notice was issued to them, which was later adjudicated by Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise demanding the said amount under Rule 57U besides imposing penalty under Rules 173Q and demanding interest under Section 11AA.4. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellants filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 28-11-2003 reduced the quantum...

Preet Security Service Vs. C and Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC23

1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner(A) who had not gone into the merits of this case as pre-deposit was only partially made by the appellants. As per the orders of the Tribunal the remaining sum was also paid by the Appellant. However, in the meanwhile Commissioner (A) had dismissed the case.3. The learned Jt. CDR has however, brought to my notice the case of Smithkline 2003 (58) RLT-479 (SC) in which the Apex Court, in a similar situation, had directed that such cases need to be remanded. Taking note of this, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner(A) for re-examining the matter and pass a speaking order after complying with the principles of natural justice....

Manmohansingh Vig Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)6SOT18(Mum.)

As these two appeals filed by two different assessees consisting of similar issues, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience."1. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 15,70,450 towards the alleged on money paid for acquiring flats and shops in Tulsi Shyam Building for assessment year 1990-9 1, on the basis of a declaration submitted by the appellant which although was retracted later.2. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,30,000 based on loose papers 38 to 50 of bundle No. 12 found during the search at the business premises of Ws. S.V. Trading Co.3. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,70,000 towards interior decoration ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Marvel Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s. Marvel Industries Ltd., who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE bags, sacks, fabrics etc., availing Modvat credit on inputs. A Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 13-2-2002, demanding Rs. 6,90,486/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Six only) for not reversing the Modvat credit of total inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods in relation to which they had claimed and obtained drawback.2. The Original adjudicating authority not only confirmed this demand but also imposed penalty on them under Section 11AC, besides ordering recovery of interest under Section 11AB. Being aggrieved, the Respondents approached the Commissioner (A) who set aside penalty and interest contemplated in the Order-in-Original with the following observations : There are no provisions in the Modvat scheme for the reversal of the credit under the Central Excis...

Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd., against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who had seen eye to eye with the Order-in-Original passed by the Dy. Commr., C. Ex.denying a refund claim of Rs. 2,65,700/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty-five thousand seven hundred only) made by the appellants under Sections 11AB and 11BB of the Central Excise Act.2. The Id. Advocate informs that the Appellants had applied for the said refund in respect of the bank interest debited to their account by their Bankers for the period 22-3-1995 to 21-3-2003 against the Bank Guarantee furnished by them to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble CEGAT (CESTAT) on 23-11-1994 against their stay application.3. The contention of the Appellants is that they were deprived from utilisation of their legitimate amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) for approximately nine years (up to 2004), which was retained as t...