Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(130)ELT938Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal the appellant has challendged the orders passed by both authorities below whereunder it has been held that the refund application has to be made within six months from the relevant date and such refund application has been made beyond the period of six months.Hence it was disallowed.2. The appellant is a Trading Firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Man Made Fabrics. At times the firm also got their purchased grey fabrics, processed by other independent processors. The goods were seized by the departmental officers the appellant paid the duty by the challan dated 12-1-1990 but they filed refund claim beyond six months that is 7-6-1991. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim against which an appeal was filed the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the order. Hence the present appeal.3. The notice for hearing was given which the applicant did not appear on 17-11-1999 further by another notice dated 21-11-1999, a notice of hearing was given. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(118)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal had imported two consignments of polyester yarn. The consignments were permitted to be warehoused in a bonded warehouse for the period of three months which was prescribed by law. Shortly after the expiry of the three months period, the respondent wrote to the department stating that it relinquished the title to the goods as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. The Assistant Collector refused to accept this claim. He said that since the period of warehousing had expired, the goods must be treated as having been cleared for home consumption. On appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the importer that since no order of clearance for home consumption has been passed in respect of the goods, the importer was entitled to relinquish his title to the goods in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 23. He found this view to have been expressed by the Bombay High Court in its judgment in Mafatlal Fine Spinning &...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appeals C/1838 to 1841 /98 are by Tata Infotech (earlier Tata Unisys) and three of its office bearers against the order of the Collector of Customs, Mumbai. By the order the Collector has demanded differential duty on the software imported by Tata Infotech Limited (hereinafter the importer) on the grounds that the value was wrongly declared during importation, imposed penalties on Aroskar, Khanna and Doshi, who were Managing Director, Business Manger and Senior Finance Manager respectively. Appeals C/259 & 60/97 are by the same importer Tata Infotech Limited and Khanna, its Business Manager against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. By this order the Commissioner has held that the software seized from the premises of the appellant liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Act on the grounds that its value was mis-declared and permitted its release on payment of fine. He has imposed penalties on the company and Khanna for the undervaluation for re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the determination of the assessable value of the lead scrap imported by M/s. Indian Lead Ltd, the respondent to this appeal.2. On its importation, the scrap value was declared to be US $ 232.30 per metric tonne. The Custom House was of the view that this value was too low, having regard to the prevailing price of scrap as quoted in the publication of the London Metal Exchange (LME for short).3. Though the departmental representative is not very clear about this, the Tribunal's order which we shall refer to later, indicate that the Assistant Collector confirmed the assessable value to be US $ 354.38 per metric tonne. This value was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).The importer carried the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not approve the method and value adopted by the Assistant Collector. It found that he did not attempt to determine the value by applying the Valuation Rules sequentially, as Rule 3 requires, nor did he ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(118)ELT303Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of PVC leather cloth manufactured by the appellant, known as rexine.2. The Collector (Appeals) has held the goods to be classifiable under Heading 39.21, whereas the appellant under Heading 59.03.3. On this identical question which came up before this Tribunal, in regard to the same fabric manufactured by the appellant, it had, in its order in appeal E/382-R/98-Bom, held that the goods were rightly classifiable under Heading 59.03. In that order the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) in support of his conclusion, which is now adopted by the departmental representative, that the plastic is predominant by weight in the material, and that the textile fabric is present only for reinforcement, have already been dealt with. The Tribunal noted that the predominance in weight or volume does not confer essential character on the goods and what is to be seen is the purpose for which the material is used. It referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(130)ELT779Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the inflatable rubber raft manufactured by the appellant and consequent liability to duty. The goods have been classified under heading 8907.00 of the Tariff by the department. The classification claimed, by the assessee is under 8906.00.2. Heading 8906.00 covers "Other vessels, including warships and lifeboats other than rowing boats". Heading 8907.00 is for "other floating structures for e.g. rafts, tanks, coffer-dams, landing stages, buoys and beacons". Sub-heading 10 of this heading is for inflatable rafts and it is under this sub-heading that the goods have been classified. The appellant supports its claim for its classification by a certificate dated 8-7-92 of the Mercantile Marine Department. The nautical surveyor who has signed the certificate says life raft is a kind of vessel or life boats. The Explanatory notes to Harmonized System of Nomenclature classify certain floating structure not having the cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(118)ELT397Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The matter having been passed over once on the ground that the advocate for the applicant is busy in the High Court. Advocate for the applicant is still not present. We have therefore read the applicants and heard the departmental representative.2. The contention that the applicant has become a sick unit is not acceptable. A mere application filed to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction is not sufficient evidence that the applicant is a sick unit. The next contention that the provisions of Section 129E did not confer power to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the order is also not acceptable. It is now settled that if the stay order is not complied with the appeal has to be dismissed. The Supreme Court observed in Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise & Customs -1981 (8) E.L.T. 679 that an appeal cannot be kept indefinitely merely because the stay order has not been complied with....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Each of the appeals is a sugar mill. Each of them had filed a claim for rebate of duty on sugar granted to such sugar factory produced sugar in excess of the normal production, as contained in Notification 146/74, dated 12-10-1974. The supplementary claim filed by each of these companies for rebate was rejected on the ground that they were not entitled to rebate under notification. The matter was pursued up to the level of the Supreme Court which passed orders in its judgment in Saswad Mali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v. Union of India, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 28 (S.C.) accepting the contention that raised by the sugar mills before it with regard to interpretation of the notification.2. Subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned to each of the appellants, refund of the amount calculated in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court.3. The department filed applications under Section 35E(2) of the Act against these orders to the Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR607; (2000)ILLJ783Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. There appears to be a very large number of industrial disputes between the petitioner company and the recognised union, the first respondent which have given rise to equally large number of legal proceedings between both of them before the Courts/Tribunals under either the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The recognised union has been nominating or deputing a large number of its members (employees) i.e., 2 Employees to appear or act in each of the Court proceedings before the labour Courts, Industrial Courts/Tribunals and the High Court. The union claims to exercise its right to do so under Section 23 of the MRTU & PULP Act (for short PULP Act). This appears to have resulted in frequent non-availability of a large number of employees on the shop-floor and in the offices of the petitioner. Many a times abrupt leaving of the employees to attend the Court cases without a reasonable notice or intimation to the superiors appears to have cau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)LC392Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in these two appeals with the classification for the purpose of Import Trade Control Policy of goods described as car covers imported by the respondent. These covers, we are told, are made of polyester and are used to cover a car when it is parked for long periods; e.g., overnight to protect its surface from the elements. The importer had claimed classification of these goods under Heading 8708.99. This heading covers parts and accessories of motor vehicle.The department did not accept this classification. It was of the view that the goods were more appropriately classifiable as made up articles of textiles under Heading 6307.90. In the adjudication proceedings which were accordingly commenced, the Additional Commissioner passed orders confirming this classification and ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine. He also imposed penalty on the importers under Section 112 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner also found the ...
Tag this Judgment!