Mumbai Court October 2000 Judgments
Kumbhi Kasari Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT246Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The 'hree applications relate to three appeals involving common points of law. These applications were heard repeatedly. The point of law having emerged and got clarified, the appeals themselves are taken up for disposal vide this common order, after granting waiver for pre-deposit of the duties confirmed in each case.2. The three appellants are manufacturers of Sugar, Molasses, Ethyl Alcohol and Denatured Spirit. Ethyl Alcohol is exempl from payment of duty. The three assessees had taken credit of the duty paid on Molasses. The credit proportionate to be inputs used in the manufacture cf product namely Ethyl Alcohol was sought to be used by the assessees for payment of duty on sugar. To do this they took recourse to the provisions of Rue 57F(12) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which read as under: "Credit of specified duty allowed in respect of a ny inputs may be utilised by the manufacturer of the final products towar Is payment of duty of excise on any of the following, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Harison Chemical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT266Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported sodium saccharin, valued at Rs. 14,91,42,305/- in Augst, 1994, and claimed its clearance in terms of a value based advance licence issued to M/s. Kaujan Enterprises, Ahmedabad and transferred, in accordance with law, to the appellant. At the relevant time goods imported under value based advance licence, were entitled to duty free clearance in terms of Notification 203/92 subject to other conditions in the notification being satisfied. The appellant claimed and was granted the benefit of the notification for sodium saccharin.2. The notice issued to the appellant in February, 1995, proposed denial of the claim for exemption. The notice advanced as reason for the denial of the claim that there was no balance left in the import licence. The appellant replied contending that the entire balance was available. The Assistant Collector adjudicating on the notice, passed an order holding that the sodium saccharin was not covered by the licence. His reasoning was as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Trivedi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT735Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The miscellaneous application asks for leave to place on record the corrigendum to the order of the Commissioner, in which he quantifies the duty payable, and to add to the grounds of the appeal filed in order to deal with this corrigendum. There is no objection from the departmental representative. The application is allowed.2. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 5.50 lakhs imposed under Section 112 of the Act on the applicant on the ground that the value of the marble imported by it was declared to be US $ 83/- per tonne CIF whereas it ought to have been US $ 268/- per tonne CIF.3. Advocate for the applicant cites before us a decision of this Tribunal in Gujarat State Export Corporation v. CC in appeal C/288/2000, [reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 632 (T)] holding that an order of the Commissioner imposing penalty, while not quantifying the duty, cannot be supported by law. He contends that, although the situation before us is different in that duty has been q...
Tag this Judgment!Century Textiles and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT718Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides it was found that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done, by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 85,022/- confirmed as demand in the impugned order.2. The appellants own an Aircraft. They imported a Battery designed for use there. It was classified under CTA Sub-heading 8506.90 with the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. dated 1-3-1997 (Sr. No. 190).The notification exempted parts of Aeroplane etc. but excluded rubber tyres and tubes. The notification granted a concession irrespective of the classification of such parts. The goods were cleared. Subsequent to their Clearance on appropriate payment of duty, a less charge memorandum was issued with the following ground:- "The imported batteries are classifiable under CTA 8506.90 and duty chargeable at the rate of 40% to 2% + additional duty at the rate of 18%." 3. The Dy. Commissioner in his order held that the issue was whether the batteries would qualify f...
Tag this Judgment!Garware Marine Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT734Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants desired disposal on merits. We have considered the written submissions made by the appellants and have heard Shri B.K.Choubey for the respondents.2. The appellants manufactured Nylon Yarn. Notification No. 47/90-C.E.dated 23-3-90 as amended by Notification No. 110/90 vide entry at serial No. 21 provided concessional rate of duty for yarn of certain denierages used for manufacture or repair of fishnets. In measuring the denierage, tolerance of 4 % was allowed. Samples of yarn of denierage of 420 and 630 were drawn and tested in the laboratory. The results showed higher denierage that is 486 and 703.2 respectively. The retest of the samples confirmed the findings. However, a separate sample sent by the assessee to SASMIRA showed no variation. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the demand for denierage 630 being within the tolerance limit. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 45,571.15 on the denierage 420. This order having been upheld by the Collector (Appeals), the present...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Ingersoll Rand (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT715Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Ingersoll Rand (I) Ltd., the respondent to this appeal supplied a consignment of air compressor to Gem Granites, Bagalkot, the latter being a 100% export oriented unit (EOU for short). Exemption under Notification 123/81 was claimed for the compressors. This notification exempts from duty goods supplied to 100% EOUs subject to the procedure specified in the Annexure to that notification being followed. The procedure contemplates inter alia that the officer in charge of the EOU certifies the particulars contained in form CT3. This certificate essentially shows that the licence number of the 100% EOU, shows that it has executed a bond in form B-16 undertaking to pay duty on goods which are not utilized in the manufacture of the exported product, and otherwise comply with the conditions specified in the notification.2. The certificate in form CT3 issued by the Superintendent on 25-9-1992 in charge of Gem Granites contained these particulars stated that it was valid up to 31-12-1992. T...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond Dye-chem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT690Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal by 50 days on the ground that the applicants' clerk who was looking after the excise work has left the services all of a sudden. Because of that the applicants could not examine the implications of the impugned order and prosecute the same by means of filing of an appeal against that portion of the order which is prejudicial to the interest of the applicant. They could contact the advocate only on 13-1-2000 and thereafter only further action could be taken. Leaving the service or joining the service normally is an incident of any business firms. Excise work is a specialized one. If a person dealing with the excise matter leaves the business organization it will be sometimes for the business firm to tackle the situation arising therefrom. Therefore the reasons stated here is bona fide and it gives sufficient cause for them not to file the appeal in a proper time. We therefore condone ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Interlinings Mfg. Co. Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT234Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today even though the stay petition is posted, I have taken up the appeal itself for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit.2. The appellant is a company engaged in the production of cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 52. They were charged with violations of certain rules of the Central Excise Act resulting in the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the duty of Rs. 40,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by the order of stay dated 7-1-1999 specifically stated that as per the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of D.C.W. Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals), 1998 (97) E.L.T. 424 personal hearing is not a must. I have checked up the judgment of the Gujarat High Court referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the said judgment in paragraph 16 the High Court has held as follows: - "Having regard to the all these circumstances, we find that the Appellate Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Raymond Ltd. and Premal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC517
1. On hearing the appellant assessee on their stay applications, in Order No. C-IV 2339-40/WZB/2000 dated 21.8.2000 the bench observes as under: The appellants manufactured "other woven fabrics of synthetic staple fibre" which was cleared without payment of duty to their sister units situated elsewhere. The determination of value was done in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) which read as follows: 6(b) where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used or consumed by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be based, (i) On the valve of the comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee; provided that in determining the value under this sub-clause, the proper officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors and in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable good...
Tag this Judgment!Cc (P) Vs. Agarwal Traders and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC451Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals filed by the Revenue are against the common order made by the Commissioner (Appeals). The two respondents have also filed cross objections. These are being disposed of together by this common order.2. The Customs seized from the premises of the respondents ball bearings of foreign make. The respondents claimed to have purchased the goods from a particular firm. Investigations showed that the firm who had sold the goods was not in existence. It was alleged by the Customs that in these circumstances, the goods were smuggled into India. The Addl. Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (A) discussed the available case laws and gave the following findings: I find that the ball and roller bearings imported are not restricted or prohibited items that they are under OGL and can be freely imported. The department has never alleged that the impugned goods are figuring in the negative list. Further, the allegation that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »