Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

ingersoll-rand (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal, the classification of a set of springs and channel to be used in compressors has already been settled by the Tribunal in Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. 1999 (30) RLT 2.Following the ratio of that decision, we hold that the goods were correctly classifiable under heading 8414.90, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief, if permitted by law....

M/S. Modern Emporium Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the denial of a claim for rebate on excisable goods exported. In terms of clause (ii) of the first proviso (2) of Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal is barring from hearing the appeal on this issue. The proper forum for the Exporter's case is filing of Revision Application to Government of India. In fact, the preamble to the said order makes it very clear. The appeal is wrongly filed and is dismissed....

Bhal Print Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The finding of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal that continuous computer stationery is classifiable under heading 48.28 of the Central Excise Tariff cannot be upheld. In its decision in Precision Stationery P. Ltd vs. CCE, Indore 1997 (94) ELT 389 and Clover Finance and Commercial Enterprise P. Ltd vs. CCE, Pune 1999 (108) ELT 92, the Tribunal has held such stationery classifiable under heading 48.20....

S.B. Reshellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT192Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the process of reshelling of rollers used in sugar mills will amount to manufacture or not. The issue is not res integra. By our Order No. C-II/3084/WZB/2000, dated 25-10-2000 made on 29-8-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 699 (Tribunal)] we have held in favour of the assessees. In this case order-in-original has been passed following the Board's Circular made in No. 75/CEX/93, dated 15-12-1993 and this has been referred to in our earlier judgment dated 25-10-2000. Hence, following the said judgment, the issue is decided in favour of the appellant assessee and the order-in-appeal impugned before us is set aside with consequential relief, if any, according to law....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Amichand Shantilal and Co. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC183

1. These four appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of the same order and are therefore disposed of together vide this single order. These appeals were argued by Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue. The respondents were represented by Shri M.L. Graver Advocate and Shri H.R. Shetty Advocate.2. M/s. Amichand Shantilal and Co. had imported 49.5 MTs of HDPE. They sold the goods on high sea sale basis to M/s. Relaxo Plastic through one Shri Rajesh Desai a broker. Shri Rajesh Damani was a partner of M/s. Amichand Shantilal & Co. The CHA filed the bills of entry and produced certain advance licences for clearance of the goods without payment of duty. However, before the goods were so cleared, the Customs found out that M/s. Relaxo Plastics was a non-existent company and that the licences were forged. M/s. Amichand Shantilal & Co. the original importers, thereafter requested for clearance of the goods on payment of duty. At the material time the goods were permissible on OGL. The Departme...

Ratan Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT449Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Ratan Udyog is whether the goods are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and penalty is imposable for not declaring the content of the goods meant for export.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. It is observed from the appeal file that the appellants have never appeared in the past also. We, therefore, heard Smt. Reena Arya, learned SDR, and perused the records.3. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants filed shipping bills No. 2414 dated 21-9-1994 for exporting 19724 pieces of ladies nighties valued at Rs. 19,08,080/- which were declared as woven fabrics claiming draw-back @ 10% under Sr. No. 2707(A) of the draw-back schedule 1993-94. Subsequently the appellants filed another shipping bill No. 2795D, dated 7-10-1994 for the said goods and now description was cotton knitted ladies nighty which attracted a lesser rate of draw-back under Sr. No. 2704. The Collector under the i...

Esteco V.K. Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit. Esteco V.K. Exports Ltd, the appellant before us executed a bond before the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Junagar undertaking to produce evidence of export of 6981 tonnes of cement clinker. On the strength of this undertaking the clinker was permitted to be cleared by its manufacturer, Gujarat Siddhi Cements Ltd., without payment of duty.2. Notice was issued to Esteco V.K. Exports, proposing to recover duty on the clinker on the ground that evidence of export was not produced within the period stipulated in the bond. The appellant, in the reply to the notice contended that cement had in fact been exported not by it, but by Saurashtra Cements Ltd. under shipping bill 414/12.7.95. The clinker had been sold by it to Saurashtra Cements. The Asst.Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals), did not accept this contention. He held that evidence of export had not...

Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 13.11 crores approx. and penalties totalling Rs. 13.16 crores approx. imposed under Section 11AC and rule 173Q.3. The duty has been demanded and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that lifts manufactured by the applicant are excisable goods leviable to duty under heading 8428.00 of the Tariff. The Commissioner has also justified invoking the extended period contained in proviso under sub-section (2) of section 11A of the Act on the ground of suppression of the facts that the applicant did not declare to the department the entire contract value.4. The counsel for the applicant contends first, that lifts are in the nature of immovable property. A lift consists of a number of components such as electric motor, gear mechanism, guide rails and the lift cage or lift car. Except for this last item all the other items are permanently fixed to the building or structure installed and in which it operates. Each lift is ...

Kolshet Ispat Udyog Ltd. and J.P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT594Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are against the order of the commissioner Central Excise. By this order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty issued to Koshet Ispat Udyog Ltd. and imposed a penalty on it under rule 96Z(P) read with rule 9(2), 173Q(1) and 173G(1), demand interest and imposed a penalty on J.P. Jindal, managing director. These appeals are by the manufacturer and JP Jindal.2. The contention of common counsel for the appellant on behalf of the manufacturer are as follows. The appellant's factory was not in production from 9.5.97 to 6.10.97. It had stopped producing any goods from 28.1.98. Therefore, that part of the Commissioner's order demanding duty on the production from 9.5.97 to 6.10.97 and from 28.1.98 to 31.3.98 cannot be sustained. For the remaining period the appellant ran only one of its two furnaces. Therefore the duty which was payable by it under Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determined Rules 1996 should be only on the basis of the one furnace whic...

Sir Kasturchand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC820

1. The appellant tendered garments for export under a claim for drawback. The officers of the department were of the view that the shirts were overvalued and the drawback claim on them is excessive.They therefore issued notice to the appellant, after investigation proposing to deny drawback, confiscate the shirts under clause (d) of Section 113 of the Act and impose penalty on the exporter and on its director and proprietor.The allegation in the notice was that each shirt should be considered to have a FOB value of Rs. 49.24 as against the value claimed of Rs. 466/-. The drawback claim on each shirt which comes to Rs. 75.56 is more than the market price and therefore not admissible in terms of clause (b) of Section 76 of the Act. The evidence that the department relied upon for the value of the goods was the enquiries conducted in the market by the department's officers.Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner has determined the FOB value to be Rs. 300/- and instructed payment of ...