Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Baroda Rayon Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above three appeals arise against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The issue in dispute is whether the appellants who are manufacturers of filament yarn are eligible to avail modvat credit on corrugated boxes (inputs) received in their factory in March and April, 1994, subsequent to 30.6.94. (The appellants availed modvat credit on 3.8.94).3. On hearing both sides, we find that it has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Montari Industries Ltd. v.CCE, Chandigarh (decided on 2.7.2001) that credit has to be taken on or before 30.6.94, in terms of Notification No. 16/94 dated 30.4.94. The Bench has relied upon the Gujarat High Court order on reference application in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Gujarat Medicraft Pvt.Ltd. 4. Following the ratio of the Larger Bench order cited supra we hold that credit taken by the appellants after 30.6.94 is not admi...

Connectronics and Cables Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT308Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This set of applications has been filed by the applicants for waiver of duty payment of Rs. 34,32,122/- minus Rs. 20 lakhs paid by the applicant during the investigation, and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs. The other two applicants namely, applicants in C/Stay-1148 and 1149/01, have filed applications for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs respectively.2. The case of the department is that in respect of the imported items which were electronics items, the value for purpose of duty has been grossly undervalued and the department bases its claim on the basis of certain quotations obtained by the department by seizure from the applicant's premises. The case of the applicant is that the quotations are not of the supplier but of a third party. Therefore this cannot be relied for purpose of enhancement of value of the imported goods for calculating the payment of customs duty. The learned counsel as well as the learned departmental representation took us through the f...

Lions Club of Poona Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT199Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is liable to be paid by the applicant, following the finding of the commissioner that the medical equipment that it imported was liable to confiscation under Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act for the reason that the applicant did not comply with the requirements of notification 64/88 under which it was cleared without payment of duty.2. On the face of it, the finding of the Commissioner that the hospital in which the equipmnet was installed did not provide 40% concession to the outpatients appears to be correct. Counsel for the applicant is not able to show what steps it took in order to ensure compliance with the condition in the notification. We therefore dismiss the stay application and direct payment of the penalty by the applicant within a month from the receipt of this order....

Forbes Gokak Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the exemption contained in notification 10/97 to goods that the appellant manufactured and cleared to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai. The appellant claimed the benefit of the exemption in terms of entry 1 to the table to the notification. This entry exempts scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment (including computers); accessorised and spares parts of these goods and supplied to a public founded research institute. The condition subject to which the exemption is available that the institution should be a public funded research institute under the administrative control of the Department of Space or the Department of Atomic Energy or the Department of Defence Research Development organisation of the Government of India. It produce a certificate to that effect of an officer of the rank of Deputy secretary to the Government of India in the concerned department. The appellant did not befor...

S.H. Kelkar and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Two notices issued to the appellant proposed denial of the modvat credit that it had taken for the periods March 1999 to August 1999, September and October 1999. The reasons advanced for denial of the credit was that the applicant did not in the declaration filed under Rule 57G, indicate the correct and precise name of the final product but declared it in general terms. After considering the reply that the appellant filed and hearing it, the Dy. Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit and also imposed a penalty on it. Hence this appeal.3. Sub-rule (11) was added to Rule 57G on 9.2.99. This rule provided that credit under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 57G shall not be denied on the ground inter alia that "the declaration filed under Sub-rule (1) does not contain all the details required to be contained therein and the manufacturer failed to comply with any other requirement under Sub-rule (1):" The proviso under this sub-rule makes it necess...

Cns Fortune Trading Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ap),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT618Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Appeal itself is taken up for hearing. It is the contention of the Appellants herein that the goods confiscated absolutely in this case were supplied by M/s. Ramam Watch Industries at Rajkot and that the present order of absolute confiscation has been passed without even hearing them. This is taken away the right of being heard on the change of the Department that the goods were liable to confiscation.Appellants submit that the goods were sent by mistake and they have not been given an opportunity if satisfying the Department regarding their claim that the consignment should either be cleared on payment of duty or should be returned to them in Hong Kong. The contention is opposed by the Ld. D.R. who submits that once the appellant authorised M/s.Rama Watch Industries to clear the goods, there was no requirement in law for granting opportunity of hearing to the supplier of the goods.3. We note that as power the letter dated March '99, the Appellants had written to the Department for...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Eastern Aromatics P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT690Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the claim made by the manufacturer for classification of geraniol, and two other chemicals under Chapter 29, rejecting the department's claim for their classification under Chapter 33.2. The department's appeal against this order refers specifically to geraniol. The ground in the appeal does not mention the other two substances, although it says that "the products" are odoriferous organic substances and hence classifiable under Chapter 33. The ground also does not advance any material in support of the claim for classification of the substances other than geraniol.3. As far as geraniol is concerned, the Chemical Examiner's report does not specifically call it an odoriferous substance. Even if it were the one, it is debatable whether it is classifiable under chapter 33.01, which applies to mixtures of odoriferous substance, or mixtures with a base of such odoriferous substance. The goods are despatched as g...

Kuwait Airways Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed on the applicant under Section 112 of the Act of Rs. 50 lakhs. Penalty has been imposed following the finding of the Commissioner in his order impugned in the appeal that the applicant was involved in the smuggling of foreign exchange amount equivalent to Rs. 1.14 crores by Yousef Al-Loughani, at the relevant time was functioning as a security officer of the applicant.2. We find this explanation prima facie extremely difficult to accept.During the course of the hearing in order to clarify the matter, we asked for affidavit of the chief executive of the applicant, and received an affidavit of Director General of Kuwait Airways. In this affidavit, the Director General explains that Al-Loughani was the security officer of the Ministry of Interior of the Government of Kuwait and the Al-Loughani was performing the function as security officer at Mumbai in that capacity. However this was not the version that the company gave to ...

Mukand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification for purpose of assessment of the goods that the appellant manufactured.They were described by it as "150t Hot Metal Charging Ladle Assembly with Bale Arm and Protection Plate as per General Arrangement Drawing No. 1-2207-01-281/A." The appellant claimed classification of these under sub-heading 10 of heading 8454.00. The heading reads "Converters, ladles, ingot moulds and casting machine, of a kind used in metallurgy or in metal foundries." Sub-heading 10 was for "All goods other parts" and carried at the relevant time rate of duty 10% and valorem; sub-heading 90 was for parts with a duty of 15% ad valorem. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the classification of these goods by the Asst. Commissioner under sub-heading 90. Hence this appeal.3. The reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) advances for his conclusion is that the appellant could not substantiate his claim that w...

insight Communication Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this stay application came up on 28.9.2001, we had asked the departmental representative to verify the contentions raised by counsel for the applicant, adjourned the matter to 18.10.2001 indicating that the appeal would be taken up that day for hearing. It was adjourned that day at the request of the departmental representative who wanted further time to check up. Today the departmental representative once again seeks adjournment. His explanation for the adjournment is unconvinced, that there is omission to check up the position of the customs. We find prima facie that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC 2000 ELT 321, and also prima facie on its own merits. Since the applicant has about 10 cases of other importation and the departmental representative despite given two opportunities, is not in a position to say why this should not be applied.2. Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty and penalty. Appeal to come up on 19^th N...