Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Euro Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT1017Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 8,37,76,998/- and penalty of equal amount we find that the appeal itself could be taken up. Both sides agreeing this was done on waiving such pre-deposit.2. The appellants had two advance licences under the DEEC. In terms of licence No. P/W/544484 10 imports of HDPE were made in Mumbai. The appellants themselves manufactured tapes there from. These tapes are even now not exported. The appellants are in contact with the DGFT for extension of the date of completion of the exports. Since the tapes were manufactured entirely out of materials imported free of duty no modvat credit was availed of. In terms of licence No. P/L/2049588 the appellants imported LAB. Their supporting manufacturer M/s. Lucknow Gramudyog Sansthan, Lucknow manufactured synthetic detergent powder which were exported. The unit was operating under Notification No.88/88-CE. Since the final products were exempt from duty the un...

Tolaram Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Tolaram Electronics P. Ltd., the assessee manufactured inter alia housing for video cassettes. This housing contains all components of a video cassette other than the tape and is purchased from it by persons, who employ technology in order to wind the magnetic tapes on to the hooks contained in it, thus making a complete video cassette. The appellant had classified the housing under heading 39.23 of the Tariff, as articles for packing or conveyance of goods and claimed the exemption contained in the notification 53/88. The department did not accept this classification and proposed to classify the goods under heading 85.23 as parts of machinery. By order passed on 17.7.91 of the Collector of Central Excise adjudicating on the notice issued held the goods classifiable under the heading claimed by the department and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the assessee and four of its employees and a purchaser of the goods.3. The assessee, employees and the purchaser appealed this ...

Vidya Mahadik Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application filed against under Section 129B of the Customs Act praying for recalling of the Order No. CL-277-87/WZB/2001 dated 2.2.2001 passed by this Tribunal in Appeals Nos. C/1099, 1188/98- Bom and C/39,40,44,1237/99-Bom. where under the applicants appeal C/39/99 was dismissed partially.2. Facts of the matter are that applicant was issued with a show cause notice dt. 2.2.98 proposing to impose penalty under Section 112A of the Customs act. It resulted in the adjudication order dt. 16.10.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Gujarat Ahmedabad by Order-n-Original No.5/COMMR/98 APP dt. 16.10.1998 where under the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.70 crores. The Tribunal partially allowed this appeal against that order an appeal C-39/99 before the Tribunal was filed. In the adjudicating order confiscated of the contended goods as well s penalties were imposed on other notice mentioned in the show cause notice referred to above however by impugned order ...

Sachins Impex and R.N. Mhatre Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC747

1. On hearing both sides on the application for early hearing we find that the law having been settled by an earlier order of the Tribunal, the appeal could be taken up for disposal.2. The first appellants are a firm in small sector, manufacturing articles falling under Chapter 82, 84 and 85 of the GET. During the period 1.4.97 to 16.11.98, they had filed various classification declarations classifying the components of Air Ducting Systems made of aluminum such as aluminum flower, core, diffuser, etc. under Heading 8414.99. On 20.4.1999, the Jurisdictional Superintendent referred to the various declarations and ruled that the classification of such goods was under Heading 7616.90. The Assessees were directed to pay the differential duty. The Assessees complied with this direction. At a later date, i.e. on 9.8.99, a Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that in the declarations made to agencies other than Central Excise, the assessees had shown that the contested goods were used in Air...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Haldyn Glass Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT779Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Haldyn Glass Limited, respondent to this appeal by the department, is engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware in its factory. The respondent manufactures in its factory such moulds of iron required for casting certain glassware. When some of the moulds that were in use became unserviceable because of they wore out, the respondent utilised them, along with duty paid pig iron which it purchased from the market, to make new moulds. It has not paid duty on these moulds, claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 275/85. This notification grants exemption to all kinds of iron castings and waste articles of iron, if they are made from any of the goods of the description specified in the annexure to the notification, falling under chapter 72 or 73 of the tariff on which excise duty or additional duty of customs had been paid; subject to the further condition (with which we are not concerned) that modvat credit has not been taken on the duty so paid. The...

Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(100)LC37Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Appellant before us is a well-known manufacturer of paints, varnishes, thinners etc. falling under Chapters 32 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the price declarations filed from time to time the appellant has claimed deductions of cash discount at 5% whereas in actual point of fact cash discount was not passed on to all its customers. This has resulted in issue of three show cause notices dated 31.12.1997, 4.9.1998 and 3.4.1998 seeking to deny the amount or Rs. 11,12,625/- on the following grounds. The applicant had four manufacturing units whereas these goods were despatched to different depots and branches. Goods were sold at all India dealer price which are uniformly applicable to all the dealers. Cash discount of 5% was allowed when payment was made immediately. The assessing authority in the impugned order has found in the Order in Original that finalising the provisional assessment for the period from July-August 1996, the cash discount was considered as inad...

Shailesh Damodia Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT368Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confiscating under the proviso of Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act, a consignment each of streptomycin sulphate and amikacin sulphate. The consignments were found to be stored in the premises at Ghatkopar of Priyesh Damodia, the appellant's cousin. Priyesh Damodia attributed the ownership of the consignment to the appellant. The appellant, on being questioned by the officers said that he had been sent this consignment by a broker, Shantibhai located in Delhi for being sold on consignment account. He gave to the department the number of the cellular telephone of Shantibhai. It is not clear what enquiries the department made on Shantibhai. In the course of subsequent investigation, however the appellant produced to the department the delivery challan issued by Parekh & Co., Calcutta to cover the transport of these goods. Notice issued to this appellant proposed to confiscate the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 on the g...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Authorities below have confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 1,45,572.89 on waste and scrap of iron and steel which attracted basic duty at the rate of Rs. 800/- P.M.T. + SED at the rate of 15% (instead of Rs. 600 P.M.T. + SED paid by the appellants) and on waste and scrap of aluminium on which SED payable was 15% (instead of 10% as paid by the appellants) during the months of April and May 1992. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 29,000/- has been imposed on the appellants.The appellants do not contest the duty demand which has been paid, but challenge the imposition of penalty on the ground that the duty amount was paid by them prior to the adjudication of the show cause notice.2. The applicants have asked for decision on merits and hence we heard the departmental representative and perused the records and the written submissions.3. The undisputed fact is that duty was not paid at the correct rate at the relevant point of time viz. when the waste and scrap was cleared from...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Welspun Terri Towels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT593Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Welspun Terri Towel, Morai Vapi is the respondent to this appeal filed by the Commissioner. It is a 100% export oriented unit. It had installed in its factory both imported as well as indigenously manufactured machinery. No duty was paid on these goods by virtue of the exemption contained in notification 13/81 (exempting imported material from customs duty) and notification 1/95 exempting indigenously manufactured machinery from excise duty. The machinery consisted in the main blow room and other machinery required for the manufacture of yarn and towels of cotton which the respondent was to manufacture. Early on 17.5.95 a fire broke out in the cotton godown of the concern. The fire raged till 4 O'clock that evening. The fire, which has subsequently been certified by appropriate authorities to be accidental, caused considerable damage to the machinery and other goods.2. On this coming to be known, the departmental authorities wrote to the concern demanding customs and excise duty fo...

Maniyar Plast Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT693Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal filed by the appellant to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise was received in his office 29 days beyond the period of three months specified in Section 35A for filing the appeal. The Commissioner has passed orders holding the appeal to be barred by limitation.2. The contention of the appellant (who is absent and unrepresented despite notice) in the appeal petition is that the Commissioner had not heard it on the ground contained in the application for condonation of delay. This contention is to be accepted. The Commissioner does not indicate that he had given any notice for hearing. The Commissioner ought to have given the appellant an opportunity to explain the grounds for delay; its perfectly possible that, in the event he would have been convinced that the delay in filing the appeal was beyond the appellant's control and hence condoned the delay.3. However without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicat...