Latest Cases

itel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2004)(93)ECC639

.....notice for period 1-9-2000 to 31-1-2001 it was not invoked.2. m/s. itel industries pvt. ltd., palakkad (formerly tata telecom ltd.) are manufacturers of telephone instruments falling under chapter 85 of the central excise tariff act, 1985 and clearing the same by resorting to mrp based assessment under section 4a of central excise act. they cleared push button telephones to the dot and mtnl on contract price and they are alleged to have claimed 40% abatement from the contract price to arrive at the assessable value. the contract price is much lower than the normal retail price. dot and mtnl in turn provide these instruments to their subscribers on rental basis. the ownership of the instruments remained with dot/mtnl, as no further sale took place.3. these products falling under sub-heading 8517.00 are specified vide notification no. 9/2000-ce. (nt) dated 1-3-2000 for the year 2000-2001, subsequently for the year 2001-2002 by notification no. 5/2001, dated 1-3-2001 and thus, with effect from 1-3-2000, electronic push button telephones manufactured by the appellants were made liable to be valued for assessment with reference to the retail price under section 4a of the.....

Super Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

.....upon the c.b.e.& c. circular no. 720/36/2003-cx dt.29.5.2003 wherein the earlier circular dt. 16.2.2001 clarifying that the drawing of wire from wire rods would amount to manufacture, has been withdrawn on the basis of supreme court decision dismissing review petition filed by the revenue in certain cases including that in the case of indian aluminium co.ltd. wherein the tribunal had held that such process does not amount to manufacture. since the present impugned order does not record the process of manufacture carried out by the appellants, and there is no reply to the show cause notice, we are not in a position to straightaway apply the circular to the present case. therefore in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the judgments of the tribunal as upheld by the supreme court and as cited supra. he shall pass orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard and the appellant shall co-operate before the commissioner by filing reply and appearing before him when he fixes dates for personal hearing.

Godfrey Philips (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)(157)ELT711Tri(Mum.)bai

1. heard both sides and perused the case records and cited case -laws.the appellants admittedly received the impugned machinery on 20-12-1999 prior to 1-3-2000, when cigarette was specified as final product and thus became eligible for taking credit of duty paid on capital goods used in the manufacture. it is the case of the appellants that the impugned machinery was installed only in the month of march, 2000 and the credit of rs. 51,380/- was taken on 30-3-2000. it is seen from the impugned order in appeal that the date of installation and the date of taking credit are also not in dispute.2. considering the fact that the machinery was installed and the credit was taken after the appellants became eligible to take such credit on amendment in the relevant notification on 1-3-2000, i am of the view that they are legally entitled to such credit notwithstanding the fact that the machinery was received on an earlier date. accordingly, i set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants.

Rana Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)(158)ELT232Tri(Mum.)bai

1. the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of rs. 2,83,013/- arises out of the order of the commissioner (appeals) as a result of classification of aluminium composite panels imported by the applicants herein under tariff heading 3920.99 as against the importer's claim for assessment under customs tariff heading 7610.90.2. on hearing both sides we find that the classification has been arrived at on the basis of the test report and therefore although the applicants submit that identical goods have been imported by them through nhava sheva, wherein the assessment has been made under chapter heading 76, it cannot be said that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out since the contesting entries have to be considered in the face of the evidence on record and relevant chapter notes, etc.however, since the bank guarantee already covers the duty amount we direct the applicants to keep the bank guarantee alive during the pendency of the appeal and also direct that the customs authorities do not enforce/encash the bank guarantee while the appeal is pending before the tribunal. the stay application is disposed of as above.

The Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Modern Petrofils Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(92)ECC351

.....having utilized their rg 23a, modvat credit balance to discharge the duties under section 3 of additional duties of excise (textile & textile articles act, 1978) 40 of 1978).2. revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that (i) the commissioner has erred in relying on this circular no.263/28/89/cx.8, in as much as the said circular was issued in the context of notification no.177/86/ce dated 01/03/86, the predecessor notification to the current applicable notification no.5/94/ce(nt) dated 01/03/94 would be not applicable.3. after hearing both sides and considering the issue involved, it is found that the notification no.5/94/ce(nt) dated 01/03/94 prescribes the duty levied under section 3 of the additional duty of excise (textile and textile articles) act, 1978 (40 of 1978) as specified duty, eligible for taking credit in the rg 23a account. the logic of board's instruction therefore would equally apply to the utilization of this credit to be utilized for discharging the duty liabilities under act 40 of 1978. we find no reason in the grounds, as taken, to find the order of the commissioner to be not as per law and or improper in having accepted and followed an applicable.....

Gujarat Dyestuff Industries Vs. Cc and Ce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(112)LC788Tri(Mum.)bai

.....(vi) of explanation to rule 57a(1) which excludes "bags or sacks made out of fabrics (whether or not coated, covered or laminated with any other material) woven from strips or tapes of plastics." 2. none appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned sdr and perused the records. the only ground on which the order of the authorities below denying modvat credit of rs. 3,99,339.67 being the credit availed during the period november 1992 to december 1993 is challenged is that the bags in question were hdpe circular laminated bags and not bags made out of fabrics woven from strips or tapes of plastics. this ground is not tenable for the reason that the exclusion is not restricted only to bags or sacks made out of textile fabric and any woven material is also a fabric. since the bags in question are made from a material woven out of plastics, strips and tapes, they are clearly covered by the exclusion clause. we therefore uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(165)ELT467Tri(Mum.)bai

.....1998) for further clearance to domestic market. (2). central excise duty of rs. 51,69,39,050/- on a quantity of 635625.7 kms of optical fibres manufactured in the 100% eou unit and clandestinely cleared to the domestic market under the invoices to the dta to show as if the same were manufactured in the dta unit; (3). central excise duty of rs. 21,63,60,797/- on a quantity of 9913kgs of preforms manufactured in the 100% eou unit and cleared clandestinely to dta unit. all the above demands have been confirmed together with interest in terms of section 11ab of the central excise act, 1944 and extended period of limitation has been invoked in the case of the above 3 demands. (4). customs duty of rs. 6,93,81,856/- on raw material, with interest, in terms of notification no. 53/97-cus (5) penalty of rs. 94,87,92,689/- on the 100% eou unit under section 11ac of the central excise act, and penalty of rs. one crore fifty lakhs under section 112(a) of the customs act on the 100 % eou unit. (6) penalty of rs. 10 crores & rs. 75 lakhs on shri navin agarwal, director of sotl (7) penalty of rs. 25 lakhs & 5 lakhs on shri l.ramkumar, chief executive officer (8) penalty of rs. 25 lakhs.....

B. Arun Kumar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(167)ELT66Tri(Mum.)bai

.....(appeals) confirming the order of the deputy collector of customs, confiscating the air compressors imported by the appellant under clause (d) of section 111 of the act but permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine of rs 1.75 lakhs (in appeal 182/88) and rs 1.80 lakhs (in appeal 187/87).2. the counsel for the appellant accepts that the importation was unauthorised. he however contends the fine which was imposed, equal to the value of the goods deserves reduction. the appellant had entered into a firm commitment for import of the goods on 20.2.1986 by opening of a letter of credit for their value based upon the opinion formed by it on the basis of the judgment of the supreme court in union of india v. rajnikant. the goods were importable in terms of the additional licences issued under paragraph 176 of the import policy 1978-79. it is only subsequent when the supreme court passed its judgment in raj parkash chemicals ltd and anr. v. union of india 1987 (30) elt 45 that the position was made clear. on this basis other benches of this tribunal reduced the fine. it has been reduced in appellant's own case also in appeal 767/88.3. the departmental representative contends.....

Dyanamic Engineers Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2004)(91)ECC313

.....6.5 of the above final order, and (iii) to decide the amount of penalty under section 11 ac, afresh in accordance with the law and natural justice." however, unfortunately, his decision cannot be said to be in accordance with the terms of our order inasmuch as the documents/statements mentioned at sl. nos. (i) to (vi) in para-6.5 of our order were not considered while taking such decision. therefore, we have no option but to send the case back to the commissioner for correct decision in terms of the earlier remand order. the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand. the adjudicating authority shall pass a fresh order in compliance with the terms of our earlier remand order. needless to say, the appellants shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the remanded issue.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ti Metal Sections

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

Reported in : (2004)(164)ELT48Tri(Chennai)

.....ground that as per rule 57e, the provision of rule 57e shall not apply in cases where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of the inputs on account of any short-levy or non-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the act or rules made thereunder with intent to evade duty.3. revenue further contended that this provision was in existence at the time of issue of certificate and hence was applicable to the present issue. they also submitted that the amendment was only in the nature of clarification and, therefore, would cover the date of payment of duty retrospectively. revenue, further, contended that even under rule 57g, the six months period is only from the date of issue of certificate under rule 57e and not from the date of payment and the commissioner (appeals) failed to give his finding regarding suppression of facts, fraud, etc., but simply agreed with the contention of the assessee that it is a classification dispute, whereas the assistant commissioner has categorically stated that there is fraud, suppression of facts, etc. revenue, therefore,.....