Latest Cases

Kay Pulp and Paper Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(105)ECC194

.....the benefit. however, it does not mean that the credit is admissible to them.4. the provisions of rule 57c are applicable in the present case and the credit should be denied in terms of the same. accordingly i hold that the appellants are not entitled to the credit of duty availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted final product in terms of the provisions of rule 57c.5. however the appellant have contended that the part of the credit involved is in respect or the inputs used for the clearance of dutiable final product, which has been denied on the ground that no evidence to that effect has been produced. the appellant submits that the same was specifically mentioned before the adjudicating authority in the calculation sheet. the part of the credit has also been held to be inadmissible in terms of rule 57h/ah. for examining the appellants claim on above two grounds i remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication and quantification.appeal is disposed off in above terms.

Consolidated Cobalt Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

.....32.72%, 21.7% and 21.50% respectively. it relied for this purpose on statements showing the details of goods imported by it and utilised in the manufacture of exported goods, deriving the value addition, verified and stated to be correct by preventive officer of the kandla free trade zone and counter signed by the appraiser. the commissioner has not questioned these statements and does not say why these statements are not acceptable. he has however, gone by a letter dtd 8/7/99 of the development commissioner of the zone which shows the value addition for 1993 94 and 1994-95 to be around 13%, which was certified by the customs officers posted at the zone. he has relied upon another letter of the asst. commissioner of the customs dtd 16/7/99 which confirms correctness of these figures after verification. it is contended by the advocate for the appellant that these two letters were not cited in the notice to show cause or made available to the appellant later in the proceedings. b) in the light of the stand taken by the appellant before the commissioner which prima facie find supports from the statements of which copies have been produced before us, we are of the view that the.....

Seat Metal Components India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

.....by the assessee and the revenue. by the impugned order, the commissioner (appeals) has noted that the capital goods have not been utilised for manufacture of final products anf hence they were not entitled to avail the modvat credit. the commissioner (appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority in respect of amortisation"cosv of rs. 3,79,230/- under section 11a and equal amount of penalty under section 11 ac read with rule 173q(1). thg commissioner (appeals) had not imposed any penalty with regard to the allegation of non-utilisation of capital goods. the revenue was aggrieved on this point and prayed for imposing fine and penalty. the revenue's prayer was not accepted and their appeal was rejected. as regards the party's appeal is concerned, the learned counsel did not contest the order pertaining to the inclusion of amortization of tool cost in the assessable value of the seat metal components. he challenged the issue pertaining to imposition of fine and penalty and interest. their appeal was allowed. the learned counsel submits that despite the appeal has been allowed, the authorities denied the benefit on the ground that there is no specific mention in the order.....

Dic India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

.....find that the board's circular as referred to by the learned j.d.r. is applicable in the case of first appeal filed before the tribunal against an order of the commissioner.this circular does not talk about anything on the second appeal filed before the tribunal. we find that the hon'ble rajasthan high court's judgment in the shree cement ltd. referred to above, is quite specific.this has restrained the central excise officers from taking any coercive action against the applicant/appellant company herein, when their stay petition is pending before an appellate authority. the above view has also been taken by this tribunal in the decisions quoted above. in view of this, we hold that the revenue officers should not take any coercive measure while the stay petition of the applicant/appellant company is pending before the tribunal. in view of this, we give an interim order of stay of recovery till their stay petition is disposed of by this tribunal. amount of duty involved in the appeal is only rs. 7.4 lacs (rupees seven lakh forty thousand). we do not find any ground for early hearing of the matter. the subject miscellaneous application for early hearing is disposed of accordingly.

Om Textiles Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2006)(107)ECC27

.....on invoice originally in favour of a party at mumbai, although by name as that of appellants. he points out that nowhere in the show cause notice, fact that goods were received was questioned by the department.3. the learned authorised departmental representative (adr), contends that the appellants have been given adequate opportunity to prove that the invoice was not invalid by prodjucing documentary evidences, such as, transport documents, consignment goods, books of accounts etc.indicating the payment made by them to the suppliers and so on and so forth, so as to prove the point that the invoices received by them along with the goods was genuine and not invalid. he also states that once the invoice is invalid, the receipt of the goods or otherwise is immaterial. rather he argued that the fact of receipt of the goods has to be proved by a valid invoice which was not there in this case.4. the learned counsel states that the relevant invoice was got corrected subsequently from the supplier to indicate their correct address here it is not a question, whether the invoice was subsequently corrected or corrected earlier as in the case of raymond ltd. v. cce, bhopal 2005 (69) rlt.....

Shri Harish P. Pherwani, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

.....v. commissioner of customs, new delhi which held that evidenciary value of detailed voluntary statement which is otherwise corroborated is not detracted by retraction thereof.5. as regards the confiscation of the indian currency, the learned advocate for shri haresh pherwani cites the following two case laws: 1) s. kotteswaran v. collector of central excise (customs), madras 2) sajjan kumar poddar v. collector of customs (prev.) he also states that the appellant has filed income tax return for the indian currency and hence the same is accounted for. in the aforecited decision of the tribunal, it has been held that the burden is on the department to prove that the seized indian currency represents sale proceeds of smuggled goods. we find in this regard that shri pherwani has admitted that he has made 25 strips to singapore and that from his statements as well as statements of others connected with this case, it is seen that he has been selling smuggled gold and other smuggled items such as computer parts and peripherals etc. for which he has been receiving foreign currency as well as indian currency. as such we are of the view that the adjudicating commissioner has rightly.....

Eligitread (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in : (2006)(106)ECC599

1. the appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of "aluminium matrices" (sh 8480.10) in their kurichi factory, which are cleared, on payment of duty, to their palghat and pondicherry factories. the pondicherry unit is the appellant in these appeals. during 2000-01, the appellant-unit received 'aluminium matrices' (capital goods) from the kuruchi unit and took cenvat credit of 50% (rs. 27,224/-) of the duty paid thereon in terms of rule 57ac(2)(a) of the central excise rules, 1944. subsequently, they removed the capital goods on payment of full duty (rs. 54,448/-) to another unit. most of these removals were made in the same financial year (2000-2001), there being one removal in april 2001. the appellant-unit took the balance 50% credit (rs. 27,224/-) in 2001-02 in terms of rule 57ac(2)(b). the lower authorities disallowed this credit of rs. 27,224/- to the assessee on the ground that the capital goods were not in the possession and use of the manufacture in the pondicherry unit when the credit in question was taken. hence appeal no. 751.2. in 2001-02, the appellant-unit received capital goods from kuruchi and took 50% (rs. 25,539/-) of the duty paid thereon in terms of.....

Aia Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

.....against the same impugned order passed by commissioner of central excise ahmedabad vide which he has denied benefit of modvat credit to the manufacturing units m/s. aia engineering pvt. ltd., m/s.reclamation welding pvt. ltd. and m/s. bhagwati autocast ltd. on the ground that they have availed modvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the dealers without actually receiving the inputs. in addition personal penalties have been imposed upon the said manufacturers along with imposition of personal penalties of varying amounts on other appellants in terms of the provisions of rule 26 of central excise rules, 2001 and 2002.2. we have heard shri r.s. dinkar the id. advocate appearing for the appellant and shri u.h. jadhav the id. jdr appearing for the revenue.3. as a consequence of intelligence report received by the officers, factory premises of m/s. new siddhi vinayak re-rolling mills were put to search on 6-8-2003. as a result of verification and investigation, it was revealed that the said factory was closed w.e.f. june, 2001 for non-payment of electricity bills and their entire manufacturing activities were stopped. the central excise registration was also surrendered.....

Contessa Commercial Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. Commr. of Customs, Faridabad

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2006)(106)ECC357

.....out of order-in-original no. 41/rh/adj./2004 dated 29.11.04 wherein the duty was confirmed, goods confiscated and penalties imposed.2. the relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant company m/s contessa commercial co. (p) ltd. imported cd roms and declared them to be falling under chapter heading no. 8524.31 of customs tariff and claimed benefit as envisaged at sl.no. 173 of notification no. 11/97-cus dated 1.3.97 as amended by notification no.3/98-cus dated 11th feb., 1998. the authorities initiated investigations and statements of officials of the company and others were recorded and a show-cause notice was issued proposing the recovery of short paid of duty, confiscation of the goods and penalties on all appellants on the ground that the importer had misdeclared the goods and other appellants also admitted the misdeclaration. all the appellants contested the show-cause notice. the adjudicating authority did not accept any of the contentions of the appellants and confirmed the duty and confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalties on the appellants.3.1 ld. senior advocate, shri m......

C.C.E. Vs. Vijay Lakshmi Poly Fabrics

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2006)(105)ECC52

.....made to eou, because those clearances have not been made under requisite documentation which enables to an eou to receive inputs without payment of duty. in view of the reduction in duty demand and other facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the penalty imposed also requires reduction.6. in view of our findings, duty demand is reduced by rs.58,596/- (rupees fifty eight thousand five hundred ninety six) and penalty is fixed at rs.2 lakhs (rupees two lakhs). the appeal of the assessee is allowed to this extent.7. revenue's appeal raises two points - one is that commissioner was in error in treating the value of the goods as cum-duty and the other is that duty demand should have been confirmed taking into account the data presented by the assessee to the banks. the first contention of the revenue has no merit at all since it is settled law that sale prices should be treated as cum-duty. there is no merit in the second contention also inasmuch as there is no evidence supporting the production and stock position reported to the bank. in view of these , revenue's appeal fails and is rejected.