Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)LC49Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized on 28-10-1996 at Varanasi, 40 bales of silk yarn. The seizure was in the premises of a transport company M/s. Vaishali Transport and Forwarding Agency, appellant in Appeal No. C/52/98. The DRI investigation showed that the consignment had been booked from Bombay by Sajjan India Ltd. (SIL for short), Bombay, appellant in C/45/98, consigned to Microweb Communication Pvt. Ltd. (MCPL for short) at Varanasi, appellant in C/46/98. Rajkumar Sharma, Director of MCPL told the officers that the consignment was part of 140 bales imported in a consignment by SIL and cleared ex-bond from Bombay against passbook without payment of duty. This was confirmed by the representative of SIL. DRI did not accept this stand and issued notice proposing confiscation of the silk under Clause (d) of Section 111 on the ground that it had been imported without the licence and proposing penalty on all three under Section 112 of the Act. Various...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(88)LC155Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in all these cases is whether the duty of Central Excise can be demanded at the tariff rate from an unit Registered as S.S.I, when they cleared the goods on payment of duty at the concessional rate without availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri K. Srivastava, Ld. S.D.R., at the outset, mentioned that they have filed five supplementary appeals along with the application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.3. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents M/s. Packsale Industries in spite of the notice. We, therefore, heard the Ld. D.R. and the submissions submitted by the Respondents under their letter dt. 26.4.1999.4. Ld. D.R. submitted that the Respondents paid concessional rate of duty while clearing their goods falling under Heading 48.19 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act while remaining out of Modvat Credit scheme. As a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)LC891Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the imported product described as "CRC Anti-corrosive Agent" is classifiable under Heading 2710 or 3811. In the impugned order the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had upheld the classification under Heading 3811, on the ground that the product was anti-corrosive, that the anti-corrosive preparations appeared in the Heading 3811 and therefore classification under that item was more appropriate. In holding so, he had derived support from the product literature of the supplier.2. We have heard Shri V.N. Deshpande, the ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chatterjee, the ld. SDR for the Revenue.3. The Deputy Chemist has suggested classification under Chapter 27 on the ground that the mineral oil content was more than 70%. We agree with the Commissioner's (Appeals) finding that the Chemical Examiner's job was to give the chemical analysis and not to suggest the classification. We have seen the product literature given by the sup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(66)ECC502
This is the party's appeal against impugned order dated 6.4.1998 praying for holding that the quantity actually received in the shore tank was the quantity required to be accounted by the appellant, and the quantity alleged to have been unaccounted represented losses during storage and transit on account of natural causes, evaporation, etc. and as such entire quantity ought to have been condoned and duty should not have been confirmed, and for any other relief deemed proper and fit.1. The facts of the case in brief are, that the appellant manufactures ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene petrochemicals, for which imported raw naphtha in 4 consignments falling under Chapter 27 of 1st Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as described in the impugned order at pages and in appeal memorandum under bills of entry Nos. 8142, 8143 dated 24.2.1994 and 3368 and 3369 dated 9.2.1994 under IGM Nos.548(1)(2), 396(1)(2) of quantity of 7500 MT (10968.119 KL), 7482.881 MT (10943.084 KL), 7500 MT (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(66)ECC491
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of bulk drugs and formulations, some of which it exports. The dispute in this appeal relates to the extent of credit, and the goods on which such credit is available consequent upon the export by the appellant of consignments of amoxycillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate, cloxacillin sodium, cefadroxil, all bulk drugs and formulations of such bulk drugs 2. The export of these goods was made under the Duty Credit Passbook Scheme. The Scheme was in force from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1997 and has been discontinued thereafter. (The appropriate authority has, however, extended until 30.6.1999, the period within which credit under the scheme can be utilised.) The provisions relating to this scheme are contained in paragraph 54 of the Handbook of Procedures issued by the Director-General Foreign Trade. The scheme contemplated that where export is made of the goods designated in the policy, the exporter would be entitled to credit of basic customs duty. The quan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(66)ECC510
1. When the cases were called none appeared despite notice. Hence we heard the learned DR and pass the following order.2. In these cases the duty demand of approximately Rs. 21 lakhs has been confirmed as duty on processed fabrics clandestinely removed without payment of duty by Applicant No. 1; Applicant No. 2 is the Central Excise Officer incharge of Applicant No. 1; Applicant No. 3 is the partner of the Applicant No. 1. Case of the department has been made out on the basis of interception of the vehicle carrying processed goods coupled with statement recorded from employees of Applicant No. 1 and driver of the tempo, who all have admitted to the modus operandi adopted by the Applicant No. 1 to remove processed fabrics without payment of duty. Learned DR draws our attention to the impugned order wherein the claim made by the applicant that some duty has been paid on some quantity, has been rejected as not being substantiated in the absence of any details regarding duty payment.3. Fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(66)ECC511
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods described in the invoice as flame retardant polyster electrical insulation tape. The importer had claimed classification under heading 8546.90 of the tariff, whereas the department had ordered them classifiable under heading 3919.90.2. Heading 85.46 is for electrical insulator of any material.Sub-heading 10 is of goods made of glass, ceramic and sub-heading 90 for others. Heading 3919.90 is adhesive plates, sheets, film, coil, tape, strip and other flat shapes of plastic, whether or not in roll.Sub-heading 10 is for rolls not exceeding 20 metres and heading 90 is for others. There is no dispute that the goods in question are adhesive. The only question therefore is whether they are electrical insulators or not.3. Advocate for the appellant contends that in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned before us or in the order of the Assistant Commissioner which was appealed before the Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(66)ECC497
1. Orders on the stay application in E/Stay-52-V/98-Bom in (E/12-V/98-Bom), E/Stay-108-RV/98-Bom in (E/30-RV/98-Bom), E/Stay-94-V/98-Bom in (E/23-V/ 98-Bom), E/Stay-92RV/98-Bom in (E/21-RV/98-Bom) and E/Stay-109-V/98-Bom in (E/31-V/98-Bom). The applicants in the above cases are the rigs contractors owning rigs, working for ONGC which are operating loading, unloading, storage and removal of imported/exported goods at Nhava base without any declaration under Section 7 of the Customs Act, as the base, under Section 8 as the Customs part (sic) [port] or the Customs area under Section 8 of the Customs Act. No Customs formalities, as prescribed under such act were observed when dutiable goods were removed for home consumption from the base. Drilling spares etc. cleared as ship stores were brought from the rigs and not returned, scrap generated on the rigs situated outside the territorial water is brought from the rigs and sold away in the domestic market. The applicants were operating outsi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(66)ECC194
1. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot against the order dated 29.5.89 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai. The brief facts are that the respondents purchased a ship for breaking and applied for permission under Section 52(b) of the Customs Act for lightening the ship which was granted to the appellant on 3.6.87. Since the Customs did not agree to the calculation of the duty on existing LDT of the said ship at the time of the filing and less 30% depreciation, the respondents filed Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court and the High Court passed an interim order directing respondents to pay basic Customs duty on CVD as per Actual LDT and as per the direction of the High Court respondents paid duty on 4.9.89 and deposited the disputed amount of Rs. 57,78,930 with the Registrar of the High Court they took credit of CVD of Rs. 15,06,647. They effected clearance during January 1988 of the generated scrap and utilised the credi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(66)ECC459
1. These two applications are from the same applicants arise from the same impugned order and have common facts. These are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. These two applicants are Proprietory Units owned by Shri Anoopkumar Rajpal Agarwal. These units manufactured ferreous and non-ferreous metal. They purchased duty paid material. The gate passes were shown to the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers, who issued certificates in lieu of the gate passes. These certificates were accepted as modvatable documents. The charge against these two concerned is that they issued such certificate against gate passes which were not genuine, which were fake and given to M/s. Murbad Alloy Castings Ltd., who had taken irregular Modvat credit on the basis of such certificate. In common proceedings, in the impugned order, the Commissioner had confirmed the demand against M/s. Murbad Alloy Castings Ltd. and had imposed penalties upon the assessee company and several other persons, ...
Tag this Judgment!