Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Kline Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issues involved in the 5 appeals are common. The appellants being common, the appeals are being disposed of vide this single order.2. The claim of the assessees that graphite crucible and tubes qualified as inputs in terms of Rule 57A was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue has been covered by a number of judgements. As regards crucibles, I find that the Tribunal in their judgement in the case of Geotze India Ltd. CCE Chandigarh (1997 (96) 323 had held that crucibles were inputs in terms of Rule 57A and were not covered by exclusion clause thereof.3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that graphite tubes are fluxing materials. Judgement of the Tribunal reproduced in 85 ECR 862 is cited. This judgement deals with the eligibility of carbon paste as raw material in the manufacture of pig iron in terms of Not. No.201/97. It is urged that the Tribunal held them to be admissible because it formed part of the molten metal. It is submitted that graphite tubes in ...

M/S Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a shortage of 3219.15 kgs. found during the examination could be ordered to be confiscated for violation of Section 113 (d)(I) read with section 114 of the Customs Act, 1944.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Exercise Books. He filed shipping bill under DEEC bearing No. 478224 dt. 13.8.93 for export of the above commodity. It is stated by appellant that as part of the export obligation they were obliged to export 2,70,000 nos. of Exercise Books weighing 33.5 Metric Tonnes. Upon examination of the consignment in question i.e. covered by Shipping Bill 30.8.93, the Customs Officer found that there was a short fall in weight to the extent of 3219.50 kgs. The additional Commissioner who passed the Order-in-Original held giving a caution allowing the appellants to amend the Shipping Bill as per actual weight and held that there was a violation of Section 50 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal the Commissioner of Customs (...

M/S. Hari Leela Process House Vs. C.C. Ex, Mumbai-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Evidently by typographical error, the stay order of the Tribunal does not specify the period within which compliance was ordered to be fulfilled.2. Hence we accept the contention of the applicant in its letter of 9.5.2001 that the Tribunal had, during the dictation of the order, specified eight weeks from the receipt of the order for deposit of part of the penalty ordered by it and note its undertaking to deposit the amount on or before 24.5.2001....

Makers Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT780Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal have been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), made in Order-in-Appeal No. 24/96 ACC dt. 12.3.96 where under he upheld the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Mumbai loading the value of the imported goods for purpose of Customs duty at US $ 425 per kg CIF from US$ 278.2. The appellants are manufacturing drug and for their usual course of business they imported 40Kgs. of 'Ketoconazole USP XXII' from English suppliers called Olympia Chemicals Ltd. London. The goods were sold at US$ 278 CIF. The goods were of Spanish origin and they were flown for Hamburg to Bombay. The suppliers b their communication at page 32 stated that the goods were manufactured in their Spanish plant. The Department case is that at the relevant time the goods have been imported at CIF prices US$ 425 kgs. (Para 5 of the show cause notice page 33). The invoice thereof on which reliance has been placed by the department was dt. 22.11.94 indicating the quantity of g...

Purulax Electric P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT786Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of Rs.30,55,170/- imposed as duty and Rs. 3 lakhs as penalty, we find that the issue being small, the appeal itself could be disposed of. We do so after granting the prayer as made.2.The appellants were transferee holders of value based advance licences. Imports were made by then during June 1993 to December 1993 in terms of Notifications No.203/92. Show cause notice issued in July 1996 alleged that in the manufacture of export goods input stage credit had been availed of and demanded the duty and sought to levy. penalty.The importers filed reply saying that they had received the licence with the transferability claused endorsed thereupon by the DGFT, that they had purchased the licence openly on payment of the premium and that they were not aware of any contravention committed earlier by the transfers. Copies of the reply were sent to the transferers also. The Commissioner did not discuss these submissions in his or...

Aryan Finefab Ltd, Kantibhai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On the date of last hearing, the common counsel for the applicants had contended that the order of the Commissioner was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. He had not considered the request made before him for adjournment of a single hearing.The Commissioner's order records that he heard Premakumar D Rai, director of the appellant.We had, therefore, requested the departmental representative to produce the adjudication records.2. These have been produced to day. They reveal that on 10.3.2000 Premkumar D Rai, director of the assessee, had handed over written submissions dated 9.3.2000.The very first request in the submission is a request for adjournment on two grounds, that their counsel Mr S.J.Vyas was to appear in the Tribunal at Mumbai on the next day e. e. on 10.3.2000, and that a writ petition with regard to seizure of fabrics from the appellant, connected with the matter before the Commissioner, was pending in the high Court. Thereafter, submissions were made...

Scientific Pharmacy Vs. Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1085Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of Rs.9,44,556/- imposed as duty and Rs.1 lakh as penalty, we find that the issue being small, the appeal itself could be disposed of. We do so after granting the prayer as made.2. The appellants were transferee holders of value based advance licences. Imports were made by them in February, 1994 in terms of Notification No.203/92. Show cause notice issued on 29.1.99 alleged that in the manufacture of export goods input stage credit had been availed of and demanded the duty and sought to levy penalty. The importers filed reply. In the reply it was claimed that the transferability was endorsed on the advance licence by the DGFT on satisfaction that the licencee had discharged the burden of import of goods. The licence was thereafter sold. In a subsequent sale the appellants had purchased the licence. It was claimed that there was no obligation to export any goods upon the appellants and therefore no contravention could...

Cc, Mumbai Vs. S.S. Dyes and Chemical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT500Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Notice was issued to the appellant Commissioner for producing legible copies of the impugned order-in-appeal and order-in-original.Notice also pointed out that there were different dates shown in the EA3 form and the application for condonation of delay of the date of communication of the impugned order - 1.12.2000 and 8.9.2000. On 18.4.2001, when the notice was returnable, the departmental representative sought for time. The matter was accordingly adjourned to to day.2. The departmental representative tells us to day that despite personal efforts by him by sending a person to three different sections of the Custom House there has been no response and that person finally returning empty handed. He also says that Shri S. Sharma, appraiser of the Custom House, who was sent to assist the departmental representative, also expresses his helplessness.3. It appears to us that the Commissioner is not serious in his appeal.Despite more than one opportunity being given, there does not appear...

Harileela Process House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty has been demanded from the applicant mainly on the ground that, in determining the capacity of its stenter, the capacity of the rail length of galleries attached to it has to be included. The larger bench of the Tribunal had decided in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd vs CCE 2000 (127) ELT 649, that the rail length of galleries is not to be considered in reckoning the capacity of the stenter.2. Accordingly, we take up the appeal itself for disposal, waiving deposit of the duty. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty and penalty is set aside and the appeal allowed. The matter is now remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law without insisting for any deposit....

M/S. Ratnajeet Polycon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application was kept pending from 1995, on the observation that the amount was not quantified. Subsequently the quantification was done. Shri MH Patil informs us that the amount has already been paid.The stay application becomes infructuous and is dismissed....