Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Samurai Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both parties on the early hearing application, we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the appellant, ordering confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act of two consignments of combination of compact disc player with tuner and a consignment of music systems incorporating a compact disc player with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 14.00 lakhs.3. The reason advanced by the Commissioner for confiscation, the absence of an import licence that the policy at the relevant time required, is not challenged by the representative of the appellant. He however seeks leniency in fine and penalty on the ground that the importer had earlier been permitted to clear a consignment of goods identical to those under consideration against a special import licence.4. This arguments was advanced before the Commissioner. He has said that the...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Power Volts Electricals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT612Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal by the Commissioner is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which that authority has held that it was not incumbent upon the manufacturer, Power Volts Electrical, to abide by the conditions of notification 1/92 with respect to the first clearance of Rs 30.00 lakhs which was exempted from duty.2. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the contention advanced before him by the manufacturer that it had to choose between the two exemptions. At the relevant time, Notification 1/93 totally exempted from duty first clearances of the value of Rs 30.00 lakhs made by a person other than a registered small-scale unit and provided a concessional rate of duty for clearances thereafter. There would be no question of claiming modvat benefit in respect of the first clearances.The notification was subject to fulfilment of various conditions, such as relating to aggregate value of the goods, exclusion from the benefit of the exemption to branded goods etc. No...

K.K. Interlinings Mfg. Co. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal was passed on a notice issued to the appellant, a manufacturer of fabrics alleging that the fabric manufactured by it was stiffened fabric, akin to buckram and hence classifiable under Heading 59.01 of the tariff, and not under Heading 52.06, as cotton fabric. In his order, the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal in the notice, demanded duty and imposed penalty.2. Paragraph 5 of the notice refers to differential duty on clearances made between 1.7.1987 to 27.4.1991. It goes on to say that the duty for the clearances between March 1989 to 24.7.1991 has already been confirmed by the Assistant Collector in his order D/1/92 dated 27.6.1992 and therefore confines the demand for the remaining period.3. This order dated 27.6.1992 of the Assistant Collector was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on an appeal by the manufacturer. The Tribunal's order disposing of the appeal filed by the Commissioner against this order is reporte...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S. Dodsal Indmag Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC404

1. M/s. Dodsal Indmag Ltd. are respondents to this appeal from the Revenue. They were indenting agents for M/s. Mannesmann Demag AG, Germany. The imports made by them were permitted on their filing a bond and making a revenue deposit, pending examination whether the prices should be loaded with the agency commission. The agreement between the parties was referred to. The importers were directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner for finalisation of the loading. They did not appear. The Deputy Commissioner directed the prices to be loaded on the following ground:- "Because of this special position vis-a-vis their foreign principal, they should be enjoying some concession which with every probability is 5% of the CIF value. So in absence of further information the 5% loading factor is decided." 2. Against this judgment the importers filed an appeal. The Commissioner set aside the lower order observing that no evidence was adduced by the adjudicating authority to reject the declare...

ishaan Exports, Ashee Exports and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT851Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Tribunal's order on the stay application, and subsequent order modifying it, passed in March and July 1999, required deposit to be made within a month from the receipt of the order passed on 21.7.1999.Subsequently, the counsel for the appellant informed the bench that by order dated 29.9.1999 of the High Court on a writ petition filed by Ashee Exports, time for deposit had been extended by two months from that date. However, subsequent that to there has been no further communication either from the appellants or their counsel. There is also no evidence of deposit as ordered by the Tribunal....

Vip Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT1046Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 31.99 lakhs approx and a penalty of Rs 50,000/-.2. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture inter alia of luggage made of ABS plastic. In the manufacture of such goods, offcuts and other remnant pieces of plastic sheets arise. The applicant sends these without payment of duty under the provisions of sub rule (4) or Rule 57F to job workers for being crushed and return to it for use again in manufacture. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the ground that such remnants were not intermediate goods to which alone sub rule (4) of Rule 57F applies, but waste and scrap more appropriately be cleared on payment of duty under sub rule (2) of Rule 57F.3. The ratio of the decision of the larger bench of this Tribunal in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd vs CCE 2000 (120) ELT 219 holding that metal waste removed for remelting into ingots to be used in the factory where the waste was generated would be covered by both sub rules (2) a...

Roplas(India)limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT186Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him as barred by limitation.2. The order of the Assistant Collector (Appeals), was passed on 16.9.1993. The Assistant Collector issued on 9.11.1993 a corrigendum to that order increasing the amount of duty demanded from the manufacturer from Rs. 53,908/- to Rs. 58,488/-. The corrigendum was communicated to the manufacturer on 16.11.1993. The manufacturer filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the order of the Assistant Collector.The High Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 28.3.1994 on the ground that the alternative remedy of appeal was available. The manufacturer thereafter filed an appeal on 7.4.1994. In his order the Collector (Appeals) has taken the date of communication of the order to be 16.9.1993, disregarding the corrigendum. The corrigendum has the effect of enhancing the duty demand. The Tribunal in its decision in Wainganga SSK Ltd Vs. CCE 2000 (121) ELT ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Lanjekar Sales Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short point of consideration in this appeal from the Revenue is the interpretation of the word "chamfering" (champer as called by the Addition a Collector and by the appellate authority). We have heard Shri B.K. Choubery for the Revenue and Shri Vikash Khare for the assessees.The assessees manufacture cast copper articles availing of the benefit of notification 178/88 which extended its coverage to such articles when "not further worked". The case of the department was that in making sluice valves chamfering was done on the cast articles taking it out of the purview of subheading 7419.10 and putting it under sub-heading 7419.99 whereby it became unfit for the benefit of the notification.The view was confirmed by the Addition Collector in his order. The Commissioner in his order held that in terms HSN sub-notes even if the castings were subjected to certain processes enumerated therein, the character or the cast articles were not lost.The Commissioner equated the action of chamf...

M/S. Rajan Prints Jawahar K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, vide his order-in-original No. 6/MP/2000 dated 31.3.2000 confirmed duty of Rs. 31,01,851/- against M/s. Rajan Prints. He imposed equal amount of penalty on them. He imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on J.K. Vakharia, partner of Rajan Prints and also imposed penalties on 59 traders who had received processed fabrics cleared without payment of duty by Rajan Prints. Sixty-one appeals were filed against this order along with applications for stay and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.The Tribunal in their order No. C-II/3466-3527/WZB/2000 dated 28.11.2000, on detailed examination of the various submissions made, made the following observation: "8. We have considered the submission. We have examined the claim made by Shri Shroff as to the computation of the demand. We find that in two statements although the same lot numbers were shown, the composition of the fabrics and the party were different. Therefore we do not find any substance i...

M/S. Suresh Engineering Works and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC78

1. Appeal No. E/3434/2000-Mum is filed by M/s. Suresh Engineering Works against order-in-appeal No. SDK (1300) 152/M.I/2000 dated 25.8.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai. Appeal No. E/3329/2000-Mum is filed by the Revenue against the same order. The facts being the same, both appeals are disposed of vide this common order.2. Notification 9/99 permits concessional rates of clearance to SSI units utilising modvat credit facility. In terms of this notification a clear option has to be given to the department and the option cannot be withdrawn during the later period of the financial year. Rule 173EE was introduced vide notification 36/99-CE (NT). Where rule 173G requires each clearance to be made on payment of duty, the procedure under rule 173GG permits payment of duty leviable on the goods cleared in a particular month to be paid by the 15th of the next month. The delay in payment attracts interest as also a penalty of Rs.500/- per day.Sub-rule (1)(a) of ...