Maco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Maco Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 16, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40001

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40001
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T S.S.
Decided On: Aug 16, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Maco Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

.....licence for import and since no such license was produced by the importers, the goods were ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962 and a penalty liability under section 112 of the customs act, 1962 was invoked. redemption fine of rs. one lakh was offered along with a personal penalty of rs. 20,000/- on the importing firm.3. we have considered the submissions and have considered the fact that the import was in the form of continuous rolls of paper which was required to be cut to shape and size and thereafter used for packing the parts manufactured by the them before despatch to actual users. we find no reason to conclude, other than the fact, that the goods imported were packaging material essential for storage/transport of the goods. examining the definition of consumer goods, especially stipulation therein that the consumer goods to directly satisfy human needs, we find no reason to conclude that the rolls of anti rust paper not require further process of cutting and shaping to satisfy human needs. the confiscation arrived at therefore, cannot be upheld and the redemption fine consequently imposed is required to be set aside. once we cannot uphold the confiscation we cannot find any reason to justify imposition of fine and penalty.4. in view of our finding, we are re-enforced by the decision relied upon by the appellant in the case of cc, new delhi v. rainbow fountains 1998 (79) ecr 375 (tribunal). we find that the issue of classification as contested by the lower authorities has not been demonstrated to have any meaning on the outcome of our decision for arriving at a finding thereto. we would order setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine as imposed alongwith penalty and allow the appeal to that extent. order accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants had imported Anti Rust Paper coated one side with chemicals which was rendered anti protection from rusting the components being manufactured and packed in this paper for further storage/transport before the components are used.

2. The lower authorities have denied licence free import of these goods on the ground that the said paper is completely finished and can be directly consumed and would be in the nature of consumer goods and therefore, would need a specific licence for import and since no such license was produced by the importers, the goods were ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked. Redemption fine of Rs. One lakh was offered along with a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the importing firm.

3. We have considered the submissions and have considered the fact that the import was in the form of continuous rolls of paper which was required to be cut to shape and size and thereafter used for packing the parts manufactured by the them before despatch to actual users. We find no reason to conclude, other than the fact, that the goods imported were packaging material essential for storage/transport of the goods. Examining the definition of consumer goods, especially stipulation therein that the consumer goods to directly satisfy human needs, we find no reason to conclude that the rolls of anti rust paper not require further process of cutting and shaping to satisfy human needs. The confiscation arrived at therefore, cannot be upheld and the redemption fine consequently imposed is required to be set aside. Once we cannot uphold the confiscation we cannot find any reason to justify imposition of fine and penalty.

4. In view of our finding, we are re-enforced by the decision relied upon by the appellant in the case of CC, New Delhi v. Rainbow Fountains 1998 (79) ECR 375 (Tribunal). We find that the issue of classification as contested by the lower authorities has not been demonstrated to have any meaning on the outcome of our decision for arriving at a finding thereto. We would order setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine as imposed alongwith penalty and allow the appeal to that extent. Order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Maco Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T S.S.