Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

ishwarlal K. Patel, Balbirsingh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central excise & Customs, Surat by which he was ordered confiscation of seized man made fabrics, but since the goods were not before him during adjudication as they have been provisionally released, he has appropriated the Bank Guarantee, confirmed the demand of additional excise duty of Rs. 36,121.92; confiscated the seized tempo and imposed penalty of Rs. One lakh on M/s. Radhakrishna Dyg. & Ptg. Mills and penalties of the following amounts on the other appellants: 2. I have heard the ld. Department Representative and perused the records. The case of the department is that the mills removed 303 pieces/28018 L.Mtrs. of processed man made fabrics on 19.11.92 in a tempo and with an intention to evade payment of duty leviable thereon, they prepared only original copy of the Gate Pass 1 issued to cover the fabrics so cleared, keeping duplicate/triplicate copies blank, so that, on safe delivery of the s...

Raptakos Brett and Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute involved in this appeal is of classification of two products, namely "maltodextrin" and "maltodex". Both these substances were forming part of the instant food preparations made by the appellants. Both products were made on hydrolysis of starch. Maltodex had Vitamin D-3 as one of the constituents. Maltodextrin was manufactured without such addition.2. The appeal papers do not show when the product maltodextrin was first manufactured. It appears that in April, 1975 the department was advised of such manufacture. The jurisdictional Superintendent directed classification under tariff Item 15-C of the old tariff which was adopted under protest. In April, 1976 the sample of the product was drawn. In December, 1976 the Superintendent conveyed the opinion of the Dy. Chief Chemist that the product consisted of reducing sugars. It would appear that the goods in terms of this advise were classifiable under tariff item 1 of the then tariff. However, the Assistant Collector classif...

Betts India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Goa

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT588Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa, dated 20.2.2001, made in Order-in-Original No. 2/2001-COMMR whereunder he has classified the imported "PLASTIC LAMINATED FILMS" under heading 3920 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and under heading 3920 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and confirmed the differential duty amounting to Rs.1,86,73,889/- payable in respect of the above consignment of PLASTIC LAMINATED FILMS imported and cleared from January 1997 to April 200 vide bills of entry shown in the annexure to show cause notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. By the said order he also confirmed the provisional assessment of bill of entry as finally assessed at tariff item 39.20 under Customs Tariff Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,86,73,889/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act.2. The appellant before us is now known as Betts India Ltd., Goa, was previously known as Courtalds Packaging (India...

Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants are not present. On perusal of the facts leading to the application for waiver of pre-deposit I find that on a legal issue the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. I do so by granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2,91,392/-.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal before him for failure of the appellants to comply with the directions to make pre-deposit. In doing so he did not direct the appellants to appear before him either for the hearing on the Stay Application or for the hearing on the Modification Application. He termed the efforts of the appellants as "endless correspondence". The appellant apart from making arguments on merit have claimed that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order suffers from denial of natural justice. Following the judgments in identical circumstances the Tribunal had allowed the appeal:Orgo Pharma Chemicals v. Commissioner Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. v. Collector 1999(114)ELT 40 3. Following the ratio ...

Shri Ganesh Dyes and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of S.O. Dyes falling under Chapter 32 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing modvat facility. During the course of transit checks on 21.1.92, the Prevenitive officers of the Central Excise, Ahmedabad intercepted one loaded with S.O. Dyes and the tempo driver informed that he had loaded 21 drums of S.O. Dyes from M/s.Pranay Dyes and Intermediates and that he was not in possession of any valid central excise documents. On arrival at the premises of M/s.Pranary Dyes & Intermediates, it was noticed that there was no responsible person there except two chemists and that the unit M/s.Shri Ganesh Dyes & Chemicals (the appellants herein) was the adjoining unit in the same compound and the owner of M/s. Pranay Dyes & Intermediates was the Vahivatkarta of M/s. Shri Ganesh Dyes & Chemicals. Verification carried out at Shri Ganesh Dyes & Chemicals revealed that they had kept the goods in p...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. G.K. Plastic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by that part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has held that the respondents are entitled to take modvat credit of Rs. 1,60,862/- on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry.2. On hearing both sides and nothing that in a long line of decisions including that of in the case of Krishna Insulations v. CCE [1996 (84) ECR 452 (T) (relied upon by the lower Appellate Authority) and CCE, Jaipur v. J.K. Synthetics [2001 (96) ECR 409], the Tribunal has held that credit is available on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry, I see no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and accordingly dismiss the same....

Mekala Laxmi Narasimha Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides I find that the issue is capable of being disposed off. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The appellant imported PCI Display Control Cards and requested that these be detained for proper clearance. Later M/s. AMsoft Data Corporation requested for clearance of these cards to them. The Corporation is a 100% EoU. The importer was a partner thereof. It was claimed that the unit had already imported personal computers and the Cards were part of the same. The value of the Cards was assessed at Rs. 13,10,134/-. The Commissioner adjudicated the case holding that the goods had to be treated as baggage goods. He dismissed the submission that the Cards were part of the computers in the absence of technical opinion. He observed that the paragraph 5.6 of the Exim Policy permitted importation of bona fide baggage goods alone and that trade goods could not be permitted importation in baggage. In this be...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Mahalaxmi Fabrics Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing refund which has arisen as a consequential benefit out of Order-in-Appeal No. 993 to 1000/98(230 to 237-Ahd-I)CE/Comr(A)/Ahd dated 24.12.98 passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the order impugned in those appeals was modified by setting aside confiscation of cotton fabrics manufactured by the respondents in respect of 2 Annexures, on the ground that it is not possible to ascertain as to which part of the bank guarantee furnished by the respondents is towards the Annexures, in respect of which the demand has been set aside.2. On hearing both sides and noting that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has adopted the same analogy of average, basis which was adopted at the time of taking security deposit from the respondents, for granting consequential relief of refund, I see no ground for staying the operation of the impugned order and accordingly dismiss the s...

Commissioner of Customs, Baroda Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I.P.C.L., the respondent to this appeal, was served a notice proposing to deny the modvat credit taken by it of the duty paid on aegron and mafron, refrigerant gases, and on other chemicals used by it to purify the water that it used in the plant for the manufacture of finished products. The notice proposed to deny the credit on the ground that these goods were also used for cooling and recirculating the cooling water system and for treatment of water and were therefore not inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products.Adjudicating on this notice, the Collector, in the order impugned in this appeal by the department, has found that the goods are very much inputs, without which the finished products cannot be manufactured. He held that the fact that they did not form part of finished products are not to be considered as inputs.2. The ground in the appeal, that the issue before the Collector was not whether the goods did or did not form part of final products, in con...

Electro Appliances Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Collector of Central Excise has disallowed wrongly availed modvat credit of Rs. 74, 490/- on imported piezo elements not utilised as inputs in the manufacture of final product viz. gas lighter by the appellants and confirmed the above amount of demand and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the appellants. The explanation of the appellants is that the shortage detected on 12.12.91 of piezo elements is on account of waste and scrap of Piezos arising during the course of manufacture of the final product. However, the explanation has been discarded by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence of issue of piezo in the manufacture of the final products.2. On hearing both sides perusing the relevant entries in the RG 23 A Part 1 register which shows that during the period in dispute piezo elements were issued for manufacturing process, I am of the view that the issue requires re-examination in the light of the evidence...