Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Integra Hindustan Control Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 19,59,503/- confirmed as duty against the applicants.2. The applicants were manufacturing in "Relays and parts of Relays" to be used in the signaling equipment of the railways. For a long time they had classified the products under heading 8608 of CETA, 1985.However at a later date they filed a declaration claiming classification under heading 8530. A series of show cause notices were issued alleging that the correct classification was under heading 8608 and demanding differential duty. The last show cause notice was dt.8.3.99. The assessees filed replies and were heard. However on 24.9.99 a corrigendum was issued with the allegation that the correct classification was under sub-heading 8536.90. Due to the elapsed time, the demand was also higher. Before the Assistant Commissioner the assessees claimed that the corrigendum amounted to a fresh show cause notice. He did not accept the contention but held that opportunity has been gr...

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum 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 appellants have given a necessary certificate in Form 3 under Rule 5(a) of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Hence appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn....

Hari Om Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After having heard both sides on the stay application we have, with their consent, taken up the appeal itself for disposal, after waiving deposit.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner imposing a penalty of Rs. 62,05,000 under Rule 96ZQ.3. The appellant was a processor of textile fabrics and was governed by the provisions of Rule 96ZQ, which requires periodical payment by the processor of the amount determined upon its annual capacity in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose. Sub-rule (3) required payment by the processor of the entire duty payable for the calendar month by the 15th of the month. After its amendment in 1st March, 2000, which requires half of the amount to be paid by 15th and the remaining to be paid by the end of month. The appellant was therefore required to pay every month, in accordance with the rules, a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs up to February, 2000 and thereafter as a result of ...

Lalit Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT479Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 92,070/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that cold rolling of strips (pattas and pattis) amounts to manufacture. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the cold rolling was undertaken only to reduce the thickness of the pattis from 1.5 mm to 1 mm. The department representative relies upon the reasoning in the Commissioner's order; the Commissioner has relied upon the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature to say that cold rolling for changing the structure of the metal or changes in its other attributes results in the emergence of a new product. However, the Supreme Court in its judgement in CCE Vs.Steel Strips Limited 1995 (75) ELT 248 has said that cold rolled strips produced out of duty paid hot rolled strips do not undergo a process of manufacture and are not liable to duty. This judgement prima facie, would apply...

Finolex Inds. Ltd. and ors. Vs. C.C.E., Pune and C.C.E. (Adj.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC816

1. The above appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the decision of the Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, Mumbai made in Order-in-Original No. 12 of 1999 dated 6.5.1999, in and by which he had confirmed (i) duty amounting to Rs. 2,65,55,914 under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with proviso to Sub-section (1) thereof and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules relating to 10271.235 MT of PVC resins removed by Ratnagiri plant to their Chinchwad plant; (ii) duty amounting to Rs. 2,65,07,250 against the assessee under the same provisions in respect of PVC resins removed clandestinely as per the worksheet contained in Annexure BII to the show-cause notice. The order also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,30,62,164 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and a fine of Rs. 15,00,000 was levied for releasing land, building etc. The order also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000 on the Managing Director, Shri K.R Chabria who is also one of the appell...

Synbiotics Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the liability to duty of the goods manufactured by the applicant to be prepared culture medium on the basis of his earlier order relating to the same goods. In its decision reported in 2000 (119) ELT 363, the Tribunal has prima facie found the product unmarketable on the ground of being unstable and waived deposit.2. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the duty demanded of Rs. 11,36,505/- and a penalty of Rs 50,000/- and stay their recovery.3. This appeal is to be transferred to Court II to be heard along with appeal E/1334 to 1336 of 1999 already pending in that Court....

M/S. Polychem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

In April 1995 the appellants/importers entered into an agreement for purchase of Styrene Monomer at the rate of US$ 650 PMT. The same price was quoted as the ruling market price in the fortnightly publication made in ICIS-LOR. Such periodical reports give the ruling price, details about the confirmed deals, buyers, sellers, quantities and future trends. In terms of the agreements, L/C was opened. Shipments were to be made in September. On 18th of September 1995 the present appellants asked for immediate delivery. However, the suppliers wanted a longer period for completing the supply. At the end of September 1995, the appellants asked the suppliers to redetermine the price in view of the world-wide fall in the price of styrene monomer. Further, negotiations followed. As a result the supplier reduced the price to US$ 470 PMT. The L/C was accordingly amended. In the later half of October 1995, the publication referred to this and also showed the ruling price of such monomer as US$ 460/-...

M/S. Indian Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs. 22,63,348/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,13,500/-, it appeared that at this stage itself, the appeal could be taken up for disposal. This was so done.2. In the impugned order the duty had been confirmed and the penalty had been levied on upholding the allegation that the importers had taken wrong benefit of Notfn.No.203/92-CUS in as much as in the export goods input stage credit was availed of. The Commissioner in his order mentioned that the importers had not filed any reply and that they had not come for the hearing. He, therefore, passed the order ex-parte as above.3. Shri Doiphode ld.counsel submits that the importers had changed their address and therefore, had not received the show cause notice or even the intimation for personal hearing. On merits, he submits that the importers were transferee licence holders. The goods exported were such as it did not attract central excise duty...

Duck Tarpaulins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By its order passed on 26.7.2000, the Tribunal, taking up the appeal, ordered that on the appellant depositing Rs. 5.00 lakhs (out of the total duty demanded of Rs. 43.13 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-) being deposited within two months from that date, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty, be set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) was to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits.2. An application for modification of the order has now been filed. The ground for modification is that the appellant is a sick industrial company. It was pointed out to the counsel for the applicant that the stay application did no indicate hardship to be one of the grounds. He agrees that this is the case. He also agrees that hardship which is now claimed has not come into existence after passing of the Tribunal's order. There has been no change in the fortunes of the company since then.3. In these circumstances, we are unabl...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Sterlite Industries Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order reference, the Tribunal had held that the fact that the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides Pvt Ltd vs Union of India 1992 (57) ELT 201, (holding that the principles of unjust enrichment will not apply to cases of refund of Customs duty paid on goods which are captively consumed by the importer) have been appealed to the Supreme Court did not mean that the Collector (Appeals) was not required to follow its ratio. It dismissed the department's appeal challenging its acceptance of the ratio of the judgement.2. This application seeks to refer to the High Court the question as to whether in the case of grant of refund of duty on goods consumed captively, the doctrine of unjust enrichment would apply or not. The object of the application is made clear, that the manner is to be kept alive because an appeal has been filed to the Supreme Court.3. On the date on which the Tribunal passed its order, it foloowed the judgement of the Bombay High Court, which has...