Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(82)ECC154
1. The present application, filed by the appellants, prays for stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Having examined the records and heard both sides, we propose to dispose of the appeal itself finally at stage. Therefore, we reject the stay application and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. The appeal is against the order of the lower appellate authority, loading the declared value of the goods by 18% under Rule 5 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. The adjudicating authority has loaded the declared value by 20% under the said Rules, which the lower appellate authority has reduced marginally to 18%. The findings recorded by both the lower authorities are concurrent except in respect of the extent of value loadability. In the present appeal, the principal challenge against the decision of the authorities below is that, after having found no relationship between the foreign supplier and the Indian buyer, the authorities ought not to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(102)LC86Tri(Chennai)
1. In these batch of appeals, com mon question of law and facts are involved. Hence they are taken up to gether for disposal as per law.2. In these appeals, appellants had imported second-hand machin ery against the EXIM policy which required the appellants to obtain im port licence, in terms of which, the said goods could be imported only by the actual users and in accordance with the procedures laid down in para-5.4 of the Procedures 1997-2002, the said second hand machineries, shall not be transferred, sold or otherwise, disposed of, within a pe riod of 5 years from the date of import except with the prior permission of Director General of Foreign Trade. As per the procedure, the Actual User shall furnish to the Customs at the time of clearance of goods, (i) self-declaration to the effect that the second-hand capital goods being imported has a minimum residual life of five years (ii) declaration to the effect that he is the actual user.3. Appellants filed declarations as prescribed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(144)ELT432Tri(Chennai)
1. Both these appeals arise from a common Order-in-Original No.25/2001, dated 3-4-2001 by which the declared value in the Bill of Entry has been enhanced to Rs. 11,84,875/- and the differential duty of Rs. 2,59,065/- has been confirmed in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act and also the goods were held to have been declared by undervaluing the same and hence the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) ordered for its confiscation under Section l11(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 , however, granting redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on Shri S.G. Govindarajulu, Proprietor of M/s. Sheraton Overseas, Chennai and Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Dinesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Utkal Impex under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act.2. The charges against the appellants are that on the basis of intelligence that they were undervaluing the ICs and Transistors, Bill of Entry No. 240432 was intercepted by the intelligence department of DRI wherein they had declared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(144)ELT371Tri(Chennai)
1. Both these appeals arise from a common Order-in-Appeal No. 155 & 156/2000, dated 23-11-2000 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the differential duty and reclassified the industrial vacuum cleaners under chapter heading 85.09 as against the claim made under chapter heading 84.79. Both the tariff headings are reproduced below:- "85.09 : Electro-mechanical domestic appliances with self-contained electric motor 84.79 : Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter." 2. Appellants contend that the item is not a domestic vacuum but it is only an industrial vacuum cleaner designed for heavy duty work. They also refer to their invoices filed before the Tribunal showing that the sale has been made only to industrial factories and even the write up manual clearly discloses that it is meant only for industrial use and not for domestic purpose. They contend that the matter had been remanded once by the Tribunal wher...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT191Tri(Chennai)
1. These two appeals filed by M/s. BNK Engine Parts (P) Ltd. and M/s.Pilot Liners Pvt. Ltd. involve a common question of law and hence both these appeals are taken up together for disposal. Appellants have challenged the imposition of penalty only and are not contesting the duty demanded from them.2. Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, learned Consultant for the appellants while reiterating the grounds taken in the appeal memoranda submitted that it was on the basis of the cost construction given by the appellants along with the price list, that the department came to know about the methodology adopted by them in arriving at the cost of the goods viz.Cylinder liners falling under Chapter 8409 for M/s. India Pistons Ltd., Chennai on job work basis availing Modvat facility. He has further submitted that the appellant have not committed any of the offence of the nature mentioned under Rules 173Q(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the C.E. Rules, 1944 and therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(102)LC398Tri(Chennai)
1. These are two revenue appeals against two orders-in-original No.22/95 dated 29.12.1995 and 25/95 dated 29.11.1995. Both the orders are against the same assessee and the question in both the appeals is the same including the facts and evidence. Although the orders passed by the Commissioner in terms of the show cause notice and allegations, they are two different orders because they were two separate imports pertaining to a item declared as VER-CRON BLUE R. The importer had claimed duty free under DEEC scheme and also availed benefit of notification No. 159/90 dated 30.3.1990 and 122/92 dated 1.3.1992. The consignment were intercepted and samples drawn were sent for chemical analysis. The revenue not only got the samples tested from their department chemical lab but also for the following reasons: 9. In order to find out the type of dye and name of the manufacturer of similar/identical dyes, representative samples of the subject consignment which drawn at CWC, Chitlapakkam, on 16.11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(141)ELT831Tri(Chennai)
1. The Revenue appeal challenges the ITC classification adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) under Heading 950380.00 which is residuary heading "other toys and modules incorporating a motor" as against the general Heading 950349.09 which is for "toys representing animals or non-human creatures". The revenue in this appeal contend that as the toys under name galloping horse toy they are required to specifically classified under 950349.09 instead of Heading 950380.00 of ITC (HS).2. The respondent have filed their written submission contending that the item is not an ordinary toy but a different one artificially driven by electric motor. Therefore, it cannot be classified under general category of toys and hence, the latter heading is correctly classified by the Commissioner (Appeals). They cited Rule 3(c) of the Rules of Interpretation which states that "when goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(102)LC151Tri(Chennai)
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against order in appeal No.C3/121/97, dated 30.7.1997 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the as-sessee and granted them refund. The Revenue is aggrieved by this order on (he ground that the respondent had imported 1 number of used foundry equipment lot vide BE No. 51334, dated 17.10.1995 for he clearance of the same under sub heeding 8479.89 and claiming the benefit under Notification No. 49/95. The value of the goods for the purpose of assessment was arrived at after following the instructions and standing orders issued in this regard. On examination of the matter it appeared that the respondent's claim for the benefit of Notification No. 49/95 cannot be allowed as no commodity was produced by using this machine. Meanwhile the importer submitted a letter requesting for assessment of the goods under sub-heading No.8428.39 read with Notification No. 49/95 at the basic customs duty @ 25%. The Revenue has submitted that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 19/2001 dated 28.2.2001 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the Order-in-Original No.59/99 dt. 30.11.99 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Commissionerate. The appellants are manufacturers of nylon compounded chips, nylon yarn and nylon tyre cord fabric falling under Chapter heading numbers 39.08, 54, 02, and 59.02. They also availed Modvat credit in respect of nylon polyamide chips falling under chapter sub heading 3908.10 on which the duty had been paid by their supplier M/s Suncity Synthetics Ltd. and they had utilised the duty paid inputs in the manufacture of nylon compounded chips.2. The Revenue had taken a view that the duty paid by their supplier, i.e. M/s Suncity Synthetic Ltd. on the inputs was irregular as it was an exempted product and on this ground the Assistant Commissioner had directed them to reverse the duty paid by them through Modvat credit.However, on appeal, the Commissioner (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT183Tri(Chennai)
1. In this appeal the appellant has claimed classification of the item Chromograph scanner CP345T under chapter sub-heading 8443.60 as a machine for use as ancillary to printing. Their claim was rejected after thorough examination of the catalogue and found out from the catalogue that the equipment employs photographic principle and that its nature and function is both of scanner as well as to develop the picture of a film. It was noticed that the issue is covered by the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Colour Scan Pvt. Ltd. v. CC as reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 255 wherein the item "scanner Chroma Graphic DC 380 colour scanner with exposing unit ER and standard accessories using the principle of photography for preparation of printing plates was held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 9006.10 and the prayer of the importer for classification under Chapter 84.43 was rejected. The Assistant Commissioner noticed from the literature that both the items were same except minor tec...
Tag this Judgment!