Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S Gazebo Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides we take up the appeal for final disposal on granting waiver of predeposit.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs. 26,66,238/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,35,000/- on the appellants. He took this action on the observation that the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus was wrongly taken inasmuch as in the export products the facility of modvat credit had been availed of. The appellant preferred an appeal and this application for waiver of the condition of predeposit of the duty and penalty.3. Against one advance licence the appellant imported certain gods without payment of duty. Three show cause notices were issued to them making the same allegation. Two of the notices were adjudicated upon in Order No. 1526 to 1525/2000/CAC/CC/M.K.B. dt. 30.11.2000 (issued on 8.1.2001) and order No. 1215/2000/CAC/CC/S.P.S.P. dt. 19.10.2000 (issued on 16.11.2000). These orders were passed by two different Commissioners. Both accepted the claim ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Setwell Conveyors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal for the Revenue was argued by Shri A.K. Jain, the respondents were not present.2. The single issue for determination in the case, is, whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dt. 1.3.86 would stand withdrawn, in the light of amending Notification No. 55/92 dt. 31.3.92, for the period between 1.4.92 to 21.5.92. This issue has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in their judgement in the case of CCE Bombay Vs. Automats (India) [2000 (119) ELT 34 (Tribunal-LB)] in favour of the assessee. Following the ratio of that judgement we dismiss this appeal....

Shri Bhagwanji G. Trivedi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal vide Order No. C-II/3646/WZB/2000 dt. 11.12.2000 had dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant on account of failure to make the redeposit directed by the Tribunal in the earlier order No. C-II/2528-30/WZB/2000 dt. 8.9.2000. In the present application the applicant has presented the same arguments as were earlier made. He claims he has no money and that the other accomplices involved are threatening him. He however requests for permission to pursue the case without any redeposit. At the same time he has also said at one place in application that he be allowed to pay in instalments., we take it to be a case of bad drafting. We find nothing in this application which was not considered in making the earlier order. This application has no merit and is dismissed....

M/S Nita Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT706Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The limited issue involved in the appeal is of classification of Bobbins made of the central Aluminium pipe and Flanges on both sides of laminated plastic with plastic material bushing. The appellants claimed classification under heading 84.48 as parts of textile machinery. The Assistant Collector in finalising the provisional assessment classified the goods under sub-heading 7616.90. This having been upheld by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal is before us.2. The Ld. Counsel persists with the plea that bobbins are an internal parts of textile machinery, he submits that are particular bobbins associating with all finalising machines. The original and the appellate authorities have placed reliance on Section Note 1 (sic) to Section XVI which says as under: (sic) Bobbins, spools, copes, cones, corers, reels or similar supports of any Material (for example, Chapter 39,40,44 or 48 or Section XV); The HSN in the Sub-notes to heading 84.48 reiterates that bobbins spools, etc. w...

M/S. National Dyeing and Bleaching Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants are not present but request that another appeal to be linked with this appeal for consideration. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the issue being settled, the appeal itself could be disposed of at the stage. We proceed to do so.2. The appellant was operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination (HASITPACD) Rules, 1998. In determining the number of chambers the length of the galleries had been added. Before the Commissioner an order of the (CEGAT) was cited in the case of C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000(120) ELT 829 (T)] in which the CEGAT had held that regarding at the purpose served by the galleries could not be taken into account while determining the number of chambers. In the face of this direct order also the Ltd. Commissioner attempted to distinguish the said judgement. He went into the interpretation of the explanation to notification No.42/98. He also referred to some other case law which advic...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S Paramount Charity Trust

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

M/s. Paramount Charity Trust, the respondents, imposed C.T. Scanner machine along with permissible spares. On examination, spares totally valued at Rs. 1,68,119/- were found to be in excess of the declared spares. The show cause notice was issued alleging that the machine required a specific licence for its clearance and that in the absence thereof, the machine was liable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) of the Act, 1962. The excess spares were alleged to be liable to confiscation under section 111(d) and section 111(1) of the Act. It was alleged that both the importer and their indenting agents M/s. Organisation had rendered themselves liable to penalty without specifying the relevant provision. Before the Commissioner the indenting agents clarified that they wee responsible for import of the extra-undeclared spares. The Commissioner held that the importation of the machine was permissible under the OGL and thus was not liable to confiscation. As regards the extra spares he...

intel Design Systems P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Excise, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for restoration of the appeal, ordered to be dismissed, on 3.8.2000 for failure to comply with the terms of the stay order.2. The representative of the applicant hands over written submission.It is first contended in these submissions that failure to deposit the amount was due to "financial crisis". There being no material in support of this claim, it cannot be accepted. The second contention is that, by application of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement in Cotspun Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (113) ELT 353, the demand is not sustainable since the duty was paid in pursuance of an approved classification list. This was a ground that was taken before us in the stay application no doubt, for the reason that the Supreme Court judgement is no longer good law. By virtue of the provisions having retrospective application under section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000, to the effect that the demand of duty cannot be held invalid solely on the ground that the classification has bee...

M/S. Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the application came up for hearing it is found that the appeal itself could be disposed of and it was taken with the consent of DR after waiving predeposit.3. The issue involved in this stay petition is grant of modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, relating electrical items. The issue has been settled by Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawhar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [1999 (108) ELT 47 (Tribunal)] confirmed by further Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. [2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-L.B.] case.Moreover the division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Siv Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2001 (129) ELT 48 (MAD).] has also held in the same way. Hence following the same, I set aside the impugned order and decide in favour of the assessee order in grant of modvat credit in respect of the items in demand...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Somani Silk Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT700Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for reference under Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the following question of law reads as under: "Whether the Man Made Fabrics which are excisable goods on which Additional Duty of Excise is payable in terms of Section 3(2) of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 shall also attract penal provisions of confiscation and penalty as is the case with all other excisable goods finding mention in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985".2. The facts of the case are by the Order-in-Original No. 28/MP/90 dt.27.3.91 Additional Collector Central Excise and Customs Vadodara had held in respect of the respondents assessees case that the assessee had to pay Additional Duty of Excise amounting to Rs. 45, 976.54 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal was filed. In the appeal the Tribunal by its order dt. 12.6.98 in (Appeal No. E/545/91-Bom) held that the impos...

M/S M.P. Venner and Polywood P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the importer against the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) Air Port, Mumbai. Confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner refund dismissing the refund application.2. The appellant imported Graphite Brush CKR Table No. TN B/25 No. 11 Size 40 x (10 + 10) 55 (2) Graphite Brush holder. Table No. TN-B/2, Sr.No. 10, Size L 40 x 20 where as the supplier airfreighted (1) Graphite 12.5 x 32 x 40 (2) Graphite Brush Holder which were wrongly shipped.They were the same parts cleared on payment of duty dt. 1.9.93. On a refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected by AC (refund) on the grounds that no evidence of wrong shipment have been produced, as they were out of charge of Customs. The thrust of case of the appellants was the items imported are different than that was invoiced. The identity of the goods were found only at their factory. Hence they are filed refund claim which was rejected. The appellants filed appel before Commissioner (Appeals) who rej...