Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Paras Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of metallic yern. The yarn was exempted by notification 26/94 until 16.3.95. On this date, the exemption was withdrawn by resigning the notification. The appellant continued to clear the goods without payment of duty, apparently on the view that some instruction by the Board did not require payment.2. In August 1998, the department issued notice to the appellant demanding duty on goods cleared between 16.3.95 and 8.2.98. The notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of section 11A of the Act. Adjudication on the notice, the Commissioner accepted the plea of the manufacturer that the extended period of limitation would not apply, and limited the demand to six months from the date of notice. He held the duty for this period to be payable and imposed a penalty on appellant of Rs.25,000/-. Hence this appeal.3. The contention of the counsel for the ...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Eastman Cast and Forge Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT789Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent to this appeal imported sheets second or defective quality and claimed the benefit of notification 204/92. The advance licence produced by it for clearance of the goods was issued to another licence produced by it for clearance of the goods was issued to another person and transferred to the respondent. The department was of the view that the sheets used in the exported product (which is not specified) were of prime quality, there being no indication in the shipping bill and the other documents that they were second quality. It therefore felt that the second quality sheets imported should be entitled to the benefit of notification 204/92, which was claimed.Following issue of notice to the importer, the Asst. Commissioner denied the benefit of the notification.2. The importer appealed the order. On appeal the Commissioner(Appeals) held that the department had not shown that was exported was defective and further held that the appellant was a transferee of the licence ...

General Motors India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC423

1. After hearing both parties on the stay application, we are of the view that the appeals can be disposed of and heard both sides and proceed to dictate this order.2. General Motors India Ltd., the appellant, manufactures motorcars in its factory at Holol. There is some dispute as to the pattern of sales of these cars. It is however not in doubt that prior to 1.4.1997 the cars were sold directly by the manufacturer to the retail customers.The retail customers paid the manufacturer the price of the car. They subsequently paid to the dealer, from whom they took delivery of the car, charges due on account of octroi, sales tax, registration and insurance. General Motors gave the dealer an amount of Rs. 16000/- out of the purchase price of the car as its margin. The dealer incurred on servicing and pre-delivery inspection of car an amount which is again in dispute. The Additional Collector in his order impugned in the appeal E/3540/00 finds to be Rs. 477 per car and the Commissioner in he...

Deepak Fertilizers and Petro Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC817

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 89.94 lakhs approx and a penalty of Rs. 90.00 lakhs.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the facts which are identical with those set out in our stay order in application 1093 and 1094/2000 filed in appeals 1507 & 1508/2000 (a copy of that order is enclosed).3. The duty has been demanded, and the penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that applicant was not entitled to pay duty on the quantities of ammonia cleared by its manufacturer without payment of duty under Chapter X procedure, received by the applicant.4. We agree that on merits the issue is debatable. The applicant paid the duty on the quantity of ammonia used by it towards manufacture of dutiable goods nitric acid and ammonium nitrate in pursuance of permission received from the department, which was in force throughout the period for which the duty is demanded -- December 1996 -- June 1998. Therefore, the fact of receipt of non-duty p...

Universal Steel Agencies and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC685

1. Delay in filing the appeals by the partners, since the appeal by the importer having already filed in time, is condoned.2. We are concerned with a total of 24 appeals filed by the importers and individual connected with them and five appeals by the department.The appeals relate to import of goods declared to be mild steel low carbon steel sheets and strips. In every case, they were declared to be mild steel cold rolled strips/sheets of defects. Examination of each of the consignments showed them to be electrical grade cold rolled grain oriented steel sheets. The values declared varied from US $ 215 to 270 per tonne. In his order, the Commissioner has enhanced the value to US $ 450 CIF per tonne for sheets and US $ 400 CIF per tonne for strips, based upon the value of contemporaneous imports at Bombay Customs House. He has held that the goods are validly covered by REP licences produced by the importers for import of items in Appendix 3 Part B of 1985-88 Policy. He has, in a number ...

Tas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT275Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant made two claims for refund of excise duty paid by it on goods manufactured and cleared by it on the ground that they were exempted from payment of duty by Notification 347/86. This notifica tion exempts from duty goods used as stores on board a ship of the Navy. The claims were rejected on the ground that when the goods were cleared from the factory the appellant did not specify in the classification list that the benefit of the notification would be claimed. This rejection by the Assistant Collector having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before the Tribunal.2. The two authorities do not dispute that the benefit of notification would be available. The only reason for rejection is that the claim for the ex emption was not made prior to clearance of the goods. If this is a valid reason for denial of the claim the provision of Section 11B of the Act would be con fined to cases where excess payment of duty is made purely only by arith metical m...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Bellary Steel and Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires P. Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 3 to come to his conclusion that reversal of modvat credit taken on the exported goods, in consequence of which benefit of notification 203/92 was claimed, was sufficient and that therefore the condition in the notification that modvat credit should not have been taken has not been contravened.2. The ground in the appeal against this order is that the reversal of the credit alone is not sufficient and the judgement of the Orissa High Court in Raj Exports vs. National Aluminium & Co. Ltd. and Ors. is cited in support. This judgement of the Orissa High Court has been set aside by the Supreme Court in an unreported judgement in view of the amnesty scheme. The departmental representative does not dispute that the facts of the case before us will be covered by the amnesty scheme....

Gautam Diagnostic Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT812Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has held that the treadmill systems and their standard accessories imported by the appellant were not eligible for the benefit of exemption of notification 6/1/88 for the reasons that the appellant was only a diagnostic centre not having indoor hospital facilities the installation certificate required to be submitted according to the notification were not produced and finally free treatment was not given to 40% of outdoor patients.3. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the first two conditions would not apply and that evidence in the form of patients' register had been given to the department to show compliance with the third condition.4. It is not denied that the importer was not a hospital having beds or other facilities to house inpatients.It was only a diagnostic centre, which carried out test as prescribed by medical p...

Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj.) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him as being barred by limitation declining to condone the delay of 51 day sin filing the appeal which he finds "grossly due to negligence on the part of the appellant".2. The appeal was against the order dated 22.3.2000 of the Asst.Commissioner, indicating to the manufacturer the annual production capacity of the stenter in its factory and the consequent duty payable by it. The manufacturer had filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal E/111/2000 by its order dictated on 1.8.00 in court, holding that the order in question was passed by the Asst. Commissioner and therefore appealable to Commissioner (Appeals).Within 15 days of this pronouncement, the appellant had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14.8.2000. It will be evident that the delay in filing to the Commissioner (Appeals) is because the appellant was pursuing the appeal with the Tribu...

Atul Mohanlal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Addl. Collector of Cumstoms imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant for his involvement in the removal without payment of duty, contrary to law quantity of umbrella cloth from the bonded warehouse of Tiger Umbrella Inds. Daman.3. The Collector of Customs, Preventive, Ahmedabad had in his order dated 10.11.89 adjudicated upon the notice issued to Tiger Umbrellas, Atul M. Jain and others on the same issue. The charge in the notice was that the umbrella cloth had been removed without proper permission from the premises of Tiger Umbrealla Inds. to the premises of R.P.Industries, located nearby. The Collector found that the fact of removal of the fabric has been established but did not find sufficient material to impose penalty on Atul M. Jain. That order was cited before the Addl. Collector who has passed the order impugned before us. She says that she did not feel bound by the order because that related to removal of goods from Tiger ...