Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has denied credit under Rule 57U, and imposed penalty on the appellant, on the ground that no declaration for the capital goods as prescribed in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57T was filed.2. One of the contention which was raised before him and was emphasised before us by the counsel for the appellant was that a full list of all the capital goods was enclosed to the declaration in general terms that was filed by the appellant on 29.3.1994. The declaration in general terms, referring to machinery and mechanical appliances including their part and accessories, electrical/electronic machinery and equipment and parts thereof and details, was contained in Annexure (1) of the appellant's letter dated 29.3.1994 to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. Paragraph 2 of this letter says, "We enclose here with lists of imported as well as indigenous capital gods giving full particular for your perusal". In the appeal paperback filed before us th...

M/S. Jyoti Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the difference between the freight collection and the expenditure towards the freight was to be added in computing the assessable value. In this belief he had confirmed Rs. 77,545.07 and had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- resulting in the present appeal.2. The appellants were not present. The appellants have filed written representation. Placing reliance on the relevant case law, We have seen the judgements and have heard Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue. We find the issue is squarely settled in favour of the assessee in terms of the Supreme Court orders in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. Vs.Collector of Central Excise [1997 (94) ELT 13 (S.C.) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such difference was not includible in the assessable value. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.(Pronounced in Court)...

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The representative submits that the appellant has achieved benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998. The appellant have given a necessary certificate in Form 3 under Rule 5 (a) of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Hence appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Suncity Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT684Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of predeposit of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed upon the appellant as penalty in the impugned order.2. The appellant imported machinery etc. valued at Rs. 1,82,33,601/- against an appropriate licence at a confessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 110/95 Cus. The Notification placed the obligation to export goods equal to the value of the capital goods imported in a phased manner completing such export is the 5[th] year. In any particular year where the manufacturer was unable to fulfil the allotted quota of valuation of export, he had to deposit duty calculated on the unfulfilled promise. In the present case, the capital goods were imported in December 1999. Show cuase notice dt. 30.12.99 alleged that for failure to fulfil the quota of export in the third year sum of Rs. 14,64,627/- was payable towards duty and interest. It was alle...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Shivaji Works and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT717Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in these eleven appeals is the liability to duty of sand prepared by the respondents used in moulds required for casting metal. Such sand is of different types knows as: green sand - made by keeping the sand with bentonite clay and water, used for making moulds; oil sand - consisting of sand linsed oil, dixtrene and water; CO[2] silicate sand - a mixture of dry sand and sodium silicate over which carbon dioxide is passed; no bake alkyd 3 resin sand used for making sand moulds; air resin sand - sand mixed with alkyd oil with the use of catalyst; and fossil sand - similar to CO[2] sand are also used for making core boxes.2. The Assistant Collector and, on appeal from his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) have held that these types of sand do not have shelf life sufficient for them to be marketable. The appeal challenges this finding by relying upon extract stated to be found in a publication Foundry Practice by N.D.Tetov. This states, "the life of mould...

M/S. Mitexco, M/S. Mittal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These four applications relate to four appeals all arising out of the common order made by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai.They are therefore dealt with vide his common order.2. A case of over valuation of export goods having been established the Commissioner directed repayment of Rs.8,37,795/- being draw back paid inexcess of the permissible amount from M/s. Mitexco and M/s. Mital Enterprises who are applicants before us.He also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 1,50,000/- upon them respectively.He also imposed penalties of Rs.5 lakhs each on the other two applicants namely Shri Ram Avtar and Shri Manoj M.Mittal partners in the two firms.The exported goods, which were recalled, were confiscated but were allowed redemption on payment of fine. The applications seek waiver of the predeposit of the penalties and also stay of recovery thereof.3. The export goods were garments.The value declared was Rs.78,05,851/-.These goods were valued variously by three independent ex...

M/S. Essel Packaging Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC128

1. M/s. Essel Packaging Limited, the Appellants, manufactured Multilayer Plastic Laminated Tubes. The input namely Multilayer Plastic Laminated Web was also manufactured by them which was cleared for captive consumption on cost construction basis as per Rule 6(b)(2) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 1975. The declared prices range between Rs.77/- Rs.112/-. However, during June 1997 some clearances were made to a buyer for Rs.233/- per Kg. A show Cause Notice was issued seeking application of this price to the clearances made for captive consumption. Differential duty was demanded on all clearances made immediately after the sales made to the outside buyer on 30.6.97.2. In the Reply to the Show Cause Notice a claim was made that the two occasions on which the goods were sold to the outside buyers should be taken to be exceptions and the price should not be taken to be the price at which the goods are "ordinarily sold". It was claimed that the price charged by the Appellants to th...

The Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT498Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the activity of Nickel Perforated Cylinders being made ready for use in printing of the fabrics would amount to manufacture or not. The Cylinders so purchased are heated and pounded, then degreased by washing, and then are treated with photosensitive chemicals. The design is exposed on the screen against light. The cylinders after developing and curing are fitted on rotary printing machines for printing work on the fabrics.2. The Tribunal in their decision in the case of Special Prints Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [2000 (117) ELT 759 (Tribunal)] after examining this process held that no new product emerged. By affixing design or while changing the design the nickel perforated cylinders remain the same. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in [1999 (112) ELT 142}. This point was noted by the Tribunal in their Larger Bench decision in the case of JSS printing Industries Pvt. Ltd.Vs. C...

Annapurna Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications are for waiver of duty totalling of Rs. 61.81 lakhs and penalty imposed on it of Rs. 4 lakhs on the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs imposed under Rule 209A on Shivkumar Agarwal, its Managing Director.3. Duty has been demanded and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the manufacturer removed quantities of fabrics processed by it without payment of the additional duty payable thereon.The counsel for the applicants does not at this stage go into the merit of the demand. He says that out of the total duty demanded the department has already collected from the suppliers of the fabrics who ultimately received the processed fabrics, duty totalling Rs. 55.87 lakhs. Therefore, the duty now payable on the fabrics comes down to Rs. 5.94 lakhs. He offers to deposit this duty. The departmental representative points out that the Commissioner's order does not refer to the payment of duty by the suppliers of the fabrics. It also does not adjust such duty f...

M/S. Mistair Home Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the matter was called out, we find that the appellants were not present. The record shows that on the earlier occasions also, they remained absent. We therefore proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of the documents on record.2. The dispute in the case is on the classification of "Tender Care Prickly Heat Powder". The claim of the appellants was that it would merit classification under sub-heading 3003.20. The Assistant Collector classified the same under sub-heading 3007.20. Before the Commissioner in appeal the assessees claimed that their products were similar to Nycil Prickly Heat Powder which was being classified under sub-heading 3003.10. The composition of both the products was shown to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the contentions that sub-heading 3007.20 was not called for, but did not accept classification under sub-heading 3003.10 either. He felt that the correct classification would be 3304.00. On his remanding the matter ba...