Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. M/S. Max India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard Shri J.M.George for the Revenue on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order and Shri N.D.George, Advocate for the respondents.2. M/s. Max India Limited the respondents imported polypropylene at the declared rate of US$ 520/(c) cif vide B/E dated 11.10.99. The goods were shipped on 30.9.99. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the invoice price and enhanced the value to US$ 711 PMT. The sole ground given in the order was that the market reports issued called PLATT's polymerscan showed the price prevailing as on 6.10.99 as US$ 790 PMT. The loaded price was after making due adjustment thereto. The importers then approached the Commissioner(Appeals) who set aside the lower order in the following words:(c) "In the instant cases I find that impugned goods have been supplied by a manufacturer. I also find that adjudicating authority has placed reliance only on the PLATT's polymerscan prices without adducing any evidence of contemporary imports of identical or ...

Disco Garments Pvt. Ltd. Abubakar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1106Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arises from the order of the Collector of Customs, Surat. I that order he has confirmed the liability on Disco Garment P.Ltd., Navsari to pay duty of around Rs. 30.84 lakhs and imposed penalty on it and Abubakar Desai, director Rs. 5 lakhs each.2. The facts are these. Disco Garment asked the department for and was granted in December 1984, a licence under section 58 of the Act for a customs bonded warehouse at Navsari. It was also permitted to carry out manufacturing operation in the bonded warehouse. This warehouse became necessary as the company had been approved by the Board of Approval of the Government of India to be 100% export oriented unit for the manufacture of garments. Briefly put, such a unit is permitted to import, on exemption for customs duty raw material an machinery required by it for manufacture of the goods, which it undertakes to export within a specified period. Notification 13/81 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act provides for such exemptio...

M/S. Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application No.E/S/84/2001 is for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 4,43,950/- confirmed as duty and penalty of equivalent amount imposed on M/s. Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd. The second application is from Shri Raghbir Singh for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon him. These two applications relate to two appeals arising out of the common impugned order. They are being disposed of together by this common order.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the first applicants were the manufacturers of the furnitures, that the value of the furnitures manufactured by them for two years was beyond the limitation specified in the relevant notifications. In the appeals and in the stay applications a number of issues had been raised.3. We have heard Shri Rohan Shah, advocate appearing alongwith Shri J.B. Verma, advocate for the applicants and Shri J.M. George, JDR for the Revenue. Shri Rohan Shah refers to the two judgements of the Tribunal viz. Louise Shoppe [19...

Ashwini Kumar Tandon, Anoop Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC205

1. These four appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). By that order, the Commissioner has ordered confiscation of the Toyota Ceres car imported in the name of Anand Giri without an option to redeem it on payment of fine, ordered confiscation of the Toyota Corsa car imported in the name of Vinod Chandra and permitted it to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs 40,000/-. He has also imposed penalties of Rs 2.50 lakhs each on Anoop Gandhi and Ashwini Kumar Tandon, and Rs 5000/- on Vinod Chandra and Anand Giri under Section 112 of the Act.2. The sequence of events, and what the Commissioner says are the facts leading to the order, can be summarised as follows. By the public notice no. 3 dated 31.3.1997 of the government permitted import of passenger cars, and other vehicles inter alia by Indian nationals coming to India for permanent settlement. Among the conditions to be complied with for making such import are that the importer has lived abroad c...

Shri Gajanan Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT392Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 4,19,074.08 was called out, the applicant/appellant was not present in spite of notice. On hearing the ld. departmental representative and on going through the documents we find that the issue could be decided at this stage. We proceeded to do so on granting waiver of pre-deposit of the confirmed duty.2. The appellant is the manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The molasses were sold at the price of Rs. 625/- per M.T. Show cause notice was issued alleging that in terms of the finding of Chief Sugar Technologists of V.D.S. Institute, the cost of manufacture of molasses without adding any overhead is Rs. 852/- P.M.T. and it would be Rs. 1,000/- P.M.T. when all the costs are added. Taking this as a normal value, the differential duty was computed and the demand was made. The duty was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner. The assessee then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that there w...

Gotco (India) P. Ltd Vs. C.C.E., Calcutta

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In view of the specific provision in the stay order that the amount in question was to be deposited "within 2 months from today" i.e. from the date of the diction of the order, we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel of the applicant that the deposit which was made on 11.12.2000, about 18 days after the expiry for the period provided, is within the time.However, considering that the deposit has been made though belatedly, we condone the delay in making the deposit and accordingly recall the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order.Appeal to be heard and disposed off on its turn....

Kitply Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of duty of Rs. 49.99 lakhs, penalty of equivalent amount under section 11AC of the Act on the manufacturer, redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of plant and machinery and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on G.M. Jain, administrative manager of the applicant.3. The manufacturer makes wood veneers at its factory at Gondia. It cleared this veneer after payment of duty to factory at Margarita for manufacture of plywood. The value of the veneers for assessment at Gondia was arrived at by application of rule 6B(2) i.e. on the cost of manufacture. In her order, the Commissioner finds that this cost that the applicant took for payment of duty was lower than it ought have been. That this is so is not disputed by the counsel for the applicant.He says that the cost of manufacture at the commencement of each financial years was approximately determined, and it is only after the close of the year the actual cost could be ascertained. he does not explain...

M/S. Khadiyar Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No.C.II/426/WZB/2001 dated 1.3.2001, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,68,604.90 confirmed as duty. On 12.4.01 the Tribunal had extended the date of hearing of compliance to today. Today, we find that the intimation sent for personal hearing had been returned by the postal authorities. In the absence of return of the order, we presume that the copy of the order was served. In the face of the failure of the Tribunal's direction, the appeal is dismissed in terms of Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1225Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant manufactures sugar in its factory at Terna Nagar. In the financial year 1995-96 to 1997-98 it acquired various items of capital goods and in accordance with the provisions of rules 57Q and T took as modvat credit the duty paid on these items. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R prohibits taking credit of the duty paid on capital goods by a manufacturer also claims depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on that part of the capital goods which represent the amount of duty it would otherwise be available as credit. The counsel for the appellant does nt dispute that in that income tax return that it filed for the three financial year, the appellant had claimed depreciation of the price of the capital gods including the duty paid upon the. It is on this basis that notice was issued to the appellant proposing disallowance of the credit taken and imposition of penalty.In the impug...

Govind Rubber Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the benefit of notification 203/92 would not be available to the good imported by the appellant and confirmed the duty which was not paid on their importation, the claim for the exemption notification having been accepted by the department. The Commissioner has come to his conclusion because no reply was filed to show cause notice which proposed to recover duty.3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the exported tyres and tubes for bicycles on which the Excise tariff does not impose duty. There is therefore no question o taking modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods. He accepts the failure to reply but points out that the appellant would have been guided by the fact that the earlier notices issued for them same exported products has been dropped. He also ci...