Mumbai Court October 2000 Judgments
Kayvee Aeropharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC281
1. These appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner, one by the importer and the three are by the Commissioner of Customs. In that order the Commissoner had ordered appropriation of duty of about Rs. 17.75 lakhs deposited by the appellant against a demand raised on the ground that chlorenexdene glucomine imported by the appellant was under-valued. The appeals are against this order. The other three appeals are by the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner's order since it did not impose the penalty under Section 112 of the Act, proposed in the notice on the importer; on its Director and one employee.2. We have heard Mr. Uday Joshi, the advocate for the importer and the two individuals, Kirit Shah, Prakash Naik, the Director and Manager of the importer, and A Chopra, departmental representative for the Commissioner.3. M/s. Kayvee Aeropharma had imported the consignment in question consisting of chlorhexidine gluconte 20% from M/s. Xttrium Laboratories, Chicago, ...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.J. and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC835
1. On hearing Shri Uday Joshi, Advocate for the applicants and Shri B.K. Choubey, JDR for the Revenue, the application was allowed and the appeal was taken up for immediate disposal.2. The appellants imported gum, damarbatu (Sarjarsam). The invoice given Bs/E under which same goods were cleared at other Ports in support of their valuation. The Assessing Authority, however, enhanced the value to US $ 700 PMT. On the B/E only this noting was done. The same noting i.e. "value enhanced to US $ 700 PMT" was made on the face of the invoice on 15.10.98. The assessee contested this and sought re-assessment. On 14.10.98 i.e. prior to the endorsement, they had requested for personal hearing waiving the issuance of show cause notice. They wrote a letter to the Chief Commissioner on 29.12.98 complaing about the delay in processing of the case. Reminders were sent. The last reminder was sent on 2.4.99. There was no response.Finally, the importers filed a writ petition on 16.4.99. The Hon'ble High ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., M.M.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC156
1. These four appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals).Application was also made for stay of operation of the order. When the stay application was heard, the bench recorded a note as follows: In these four appeals the Revenue had challenged the single order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the other Commissioner had followed the ratio of the earlier orders passed by him. His order makes it clear that the copy of the earlier orders was made a part of the impugned order. Since the Appellant Commissioner has not filed copies of those earlier orders, we are unable to proceed with the hearing of the applications for stay. Registry would issued a notice to the applicant Commissioner under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, making it clear that if the lacuna is not made good within two weeks of the receipt of the notice, the appeals shall be liable to be dismissed without further Notice.2. These d...
Tag this Judgment!Soma Textile and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC297
1. The appellant filed on 30.9.1995 and 6.4.1996 declarations for the purpose of valuation of cotton yarn manufactured by it and captively consumed for manufacture of cotton fabrics. Such yam was being valued on the cost of manufacture, as provided in Rule 6(b)(2) of the Valuation Rules. The declaration in each case was supported by a Cost Accountant's certificate. The certificate which was enclosed with the declaration filed on 30.9.1995 begins as follows: "This is to certify that the manufacturing cost of yam of following counts on the basis of the correct raw material prices and manufacturing expenses as per the cost accounting records of M/s. Soma Textiles and Industries Limited, Rakhia Road, Ahmedabad 380 023, for the year ended 31st March, 1995 are as follows:-- The certificate enclosed to the declaration filed on 6.4.1996 was in identical terms.2. Two notices were issued, following the submissions of these declarations, demanding duty. The notices sought to apply to, the cleara...
Tag this Judgment!The Svadeshi Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC150
1. The above appellant has challenged the above captioned Impugned order dated 5.11.1999, praying for setting aside the same, and for other appropriate relief. (1) The brief facts of the case are that appellant manufactures Fusible Interlinings Coated fabrics, under Chapter 5903.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Rs. 96,15,185.97Paise Excise duty paid during 16.5.1988 to 28.2.1989, was claimed by the appellant as refund based on the order dated 21.4.1989 of Commissioner (Appeals), and Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division II, Mumbai-II sanctioned it on 10.4.1990 in Order-in-Original. The department, after review, filed EA2 appeal on the grounds RT12 returns were not endorsed with "duty paid under protest" under Rule 233B(4) of Central Excise Rules and refund claim was time barred under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, and it was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) on 3.3.1992. Department filed an appeal to the tribunal which was rejected on 5.6.1988, with the direction that re...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT732Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand for duty made on the appellant by the Asstt. Collector, but set aside the penalty imposed and confiscation of the goods ordered by him.2. The advocate for the appellant points out that the appellant did not process the fabrics on which duty has been demanded. He merely passed on the grey fabrics to the processor. No duty can be demanded under Rule 9(2) on the appellant; that rule provides for the manufacturer or the producer of the excise goods to pay duty. The departmental representative contends that the appellant is required to pay the duty, since is required to abide by the provisions of notification 305/77.3. Notification 305/77, now repealed, provided inter alia that the supplier of the goods to a job worker must declare the value of the goods to be processed and manufactured by the job worker, and also declare the price at which such goods must be sold. The fact that the appellant had signed the decla...
Tag this Judgment!Milton Plastics Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC147
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the determination of the assessable value of 7200 metric tonnes of high density polyethylene, imported by the appellant in two lots of 330 metric tonnes and 390 metric tonnes. The two consignments arrived in Bombay in December 1994. The importer indicated the assessable value to be US $ 575 per metric tonne CIF for the plastic, of Russian origin.2. The Custom House was of the view that the goods were to be valued at US $ 710 per tonne, the reasons for this being that the Platt bulletin indicated the value of such goods in September, 1994 to be US $ 820/850 per tonne, and a consignment of 270 metric tonnes of the same product of Russian origin was imported by Hardik Industrial Corporation at US $ 710 per tonne in the same month.3. The importer's contention was that the contract for supply of these goods had been entered into with the supplier (with M/s. ICD Group BV, located in Amsterdam) in June 1994 for shipment at the price claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Shreeji Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC175
1. M/S. Mutual Industries Ltd. (hereinafter called as MIL) manufacture plastic articles using moulds. Moulds are excisable products. On a visit to the factory of M/s. MIL the officers noticed 172 moulds which were detained on the failure of M/s. MIL to show that duty had been paid thereupon. Later, the used and old moulds were released. Certain moulds which were shown to have been cleared on payment of duty were also released. 83 moulds totally valued at Rs. 1,64,75,610/- were seized. The factory of M/s. Shreeji Engineering Works (hereinafter called as SEW) was thereafter searched. These two firms had Shri Manoj K. Gandhi as the common partner. He deposed that the moulds were got made by M/s. MIL from M/s. SEW on job work basis where the raw materials were provided by M/s. MIL. Such job work was done under challans issued under Rule 47F(3) of the Rule, or under Notification No. 214/86. He deposed that moulds were manufactured in M/s. SEW, that they were tested and if found deficient, ...
Tag this Judgment!Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT219Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal, with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming a demand for duty on six marine containers in respect of which he finds that the appellant has not satisfied the condition contained in Notification 104/94. The notification exempts marine containers imported into India from payment of duty subject to their being re-exported within six months of their importation.3. Advocate for the appellant agrees that it has not been possible to establish the re-export of two of these and undertakes that duty will be paid on these two. He says that two out of the remaining four were shown in a multi modal transport document to have been re-exported. The Commissioner has not accepted the multi modal transport document as evidence of re-export by misapplying a public notice. He says that in any event, the affidavit filed by the office bearers of the steamer agent in Colombo and Singapore confi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ceat Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC159
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department making a plea that a valuation of the imported material which are claimed by the respondent at US $ 470 PMT CIF was wrongly made and it should be fixed at US $ 840 PMT CIF.2. The respondents before us imported 136 MTs Stearic Acid filed into bond Bill of Entry No. 12282 dt. 29.9.95. They also filed purchase order and letter of credit. The department did not agree with the value declared by the Respondent for purpose of assessment at transaction value resulting in the Order-in-Original being passed by the Assistant Commissioner increasing in the value to 840 PMT. The respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who by the impugned order rejected the case of the department and allowed appeal of the respondents. Hence the present appeal.3. The Department's case as revealed in the grounds of appeal is that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the normal transaction value in the course of International ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »