Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Terry Travels Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we find that during investigation by the revenue, respondents had already deposited the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs under protest. However, subsequently, proceedings were initiated against the appellant and since they did not culminate into an order and confirmation of demand of duty against them, respondent filed a refund claim for the deposits made during the investigation. The same was rejected by the original adjudicating authority. However, the appellant filed an appeal, which was disposed off by Commissioner (Appeals) while observing as under: "4. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellants during personal hearing as well as in their appeal memorandum. The issue to be considered in the instant case is whether the amount deposited under protest during investigation of case is required to be refunded as the case has not been finally decided and no demand exist. I find the present refund claim has been filed by t...

The Liquidator (Govt. of India) Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods and during the relevant period they were availing the benefit of modvat credit after filing due declaration. One of the inputs DMT was received by them from M/s. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd, on which they availed the credit on the basis of the duty paying documents. Subsequently due to upward revision of price affected on the inputs manufacturer, they paid Differential duty of Rs. 8,40,000/- in their PLA on 08.06.95. Inasmuch as the appellants were entitled to take the modvat credit of the differential duty paid by Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a certificate under the provisions of Rule 57E on 08.06.95. The said certificate was not received by the noticee company and as such, they requested for issuance of another certificate. Subsequently, concerned officer issued a certificate dated 20.07.96 under the provisions of Rule 57E in lieu of...

V.T. Dolwani, Tekson Ltd. and V. Vs. Ccex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT968Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The main allegation against the appellant is gross under valuation while clearing the goods by M/s Tekson Ltd. to M/s Teksons Cooling Systems Pvt Ltd., which were cleared without filing the price declaration under Rule 173-C(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and without disclosing that M/s Teksons Cooling Systems Pvt Ltd., Jamshedpur, is the subsidiary company of M/s Tekson Ltd., Thane. The issue, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether M/s Tekson Ltd. is related person of M/s Teksons Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd. in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and were required to pay Central Excise duty on value determined as per Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.2. For the purpose of reference Section 4(1) (a), 4(1) (b), 4(4)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 6(b)(ii) and Rule 6(c)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 are reproduced as under:- ...

JaIn Trading Co. and Modi and Modi Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT96Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they are directed towards the same impugned order-in-appeal and involve same facts and issues.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of valves falling under Chapter 84 of the CETA'85. Apart from manufacturing valves for themselves, they are also manufacturing under the brand name "Prime" which belonged to M/s Prime Industrial Valves Mfg Co. Appellants were availing the benefit of small scale exemption of Rs.30 lakhs.Department, however, entertained a view that the valves bearing brand name "Prime" which belonged to other manufacturer were not entitled to be cleared under the exemption notification. Accordingly, after due investigations and recording of statements of various persons, proceedings were initiated against the appellants proposing denial of benefit of notification no. 1/93 and 16/97 for the period 1994-95 to 1997-98 and to confirm demand of duties along with confiscation of seized goods and imposition of ...

Arco Whitey Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of notification no. 175/86-CE to the appellant, which has been denied on the ground that they were using the brand name of M/s American Refrigeration Co. Ltd., who is not entitled to the benefit of notification. Accordingly, duty of Rs. 1,89,803/- has been confirmed against the appellant.2. On the other hand, appellants has contented that they were using the brand name 'A/W' of M/s. ARO WHITNEY for hydraulic equipments manufactured by them. Though the said brand name belongs to M/s.American Refrigeration Co. but the same has been assigned to the appellant vide purchase deed dated 28.03.94. In terms of the said purchase deed appellant had purchased the manufacturing unit as a 'going concern' with all its assets, including the goodwill, right to use the trade mark and all technical drawing and designs and know-how, patents, licenses etc. in consideration of Rs. 107.00 Lakhs. As such, it is their contention that with effect from 28...

V.L. Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT69Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we are taking up the appeal itself as much as the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal.2. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of bare copper wire and Enameled winding wire. Some of the goods received by their customers are rejected and sent back to the appellant. Prior to the period in question i.e. July 1997 to October 2000, the appellants were availing the modvat credit of duty paid on such rejected wires by their customers, Utilising such inputs in the manufacture of fresh wire which were being cleared by them on payment of duty. Such practise was not found favourable by their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, who entered into a long correspondence with the appellant and ultimately directed them that in as much as the rejected wires received by them are not being melted and remade into new wires, they cannot have modvat credit of duty paid on the damaged wires. According...

Prabhat Industries, Shri AustIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC375

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the authorities below vide which duty of Rs. 51,606 (Rupees fifty one thousand six hundred and six only) has been confirmed against M/s.Prabhat Industries alongwith imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the finding of clandestine removal of the coated cotton fabrics. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, has been imposed on other two appellants under the provisions of Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri Austin J. Parampil is the Manager of M/s. Prabhat Industries and Shri K.M. Shah is the proprietor.2. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers for preventive checks, on 13.7.96 and during the course of physical verification of the stock, it was noticed that there was a shortage of 3123.4000 L. Mtrs of the coated cotton fabrics totally valued at Rs....

Cannon Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and on considering the material & facts in this appeal it is found- a) For an alleged act of misdemeanour on certain Shipping Bills filed in the Air Cargo Delhi showing the name of the appellant, a Custom House Agent licensed by Mumbai Custom House, having a branch office in Delhi, the licence has been ordered to be suspended vide order dated 21.04.05 by Commissioner of Customs Mumbai. The Shipping Bills were filed on 18.12.01. The delay in the period between the filling of Shipping Bills or & recording of statements on 20.10.04 and 13.12.04 the CEO & Directions of the appellant at Delhi, and the suspension is not satisfactory explained. The mere fact of the address at Delhi being doubted to be genuine will not ipso facto call for a suspension. b) In view of the absence of a nexus between the alleged act of a misdemeanour and the date of suspension, the suspension, especially of the Business of the appellant allover India would be positive actio...

Maruti Transport and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in all these appeals is identical and as such, they are being disposed off by a common order.2. Duties have been confirmed and penalties imposed upon various persons on the ground that they are engaged in the activity of decoiling, straightening and cutting Rebar Coils obtained from the manufacturers of the same, into Rebar bars and clearing the same without payment of duty of excise and without observing other excise formalities. The Revenue's contention is that such activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and such bars obtained from the coils are classifiable as 'other Bars and Non Alloy Steel' falling under chapter sub heading No. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 25. Thus, I observe that the case is essentially involving about the issue involved in this case whether the activities i.e. decoiling, straightening and cutting of Rebur Coils falling under chapter sub-heading No. 7213.90 undertaken to produce TMT Rebar Rods/Bars fa...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Orkay Polyesters Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT191Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Revenue is in appeal against the order of CCE(A), who after finding that the Id. adjudicating authority has discussed at length the reason for non imposition of penalty which are found to be not justified and the stand of the department that substantial revenue is involved cannot be a coherent reason or ground for a review dismissed the revenues appeal filed before him.3. Revenue in the present appeal filed before us has taken the grounds - (i) CCE(A) erred in passing the order as the credit was availed without observing the procedure. (ii) Penalty provision of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were correctly involved in the notice & the adjudicator has found that the assessee has availed and untilised the credit on the input which was not proper and held the same to be recoverable & payment of duty on methanol was denied. (iii) Non imposition of penalty cannot be justified in the above circumstance since contravention of the Rules and confirmation of demand under Sec...