Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC640

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is of classification of grey unprocessed cotton fabrics which are stated to be intended for the manufacture of textile products for industrial use. The Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the classification of the product under heading 59.09 of the Tariff (all other textile products and articles of a king suitable for industrial use). The appellant claimed classification under heading 52.05 as cotton fabrics, woven and not subject to any process.2. The issue has been decided by the larger bench of this Tribunal in its decision in Jyoti Overseas Ltd. vs. CCE 2001 (130) ELT 446. The bench has held that grey cotton fabrics cleared in running length without being subjected to any further processing by the manufacturer, used for making tarpaulin, tents etc. would be classifiable under heading 52.07 (corresponding to heading 52.05 of the Tariff during the period with which we are concerned.) The departmental representative is not able to say wh...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for condonation of delay of 34 days in preferring the above appeal has been explained in the application due to the massive earth quake which took place in Gujarat in January, 2001.Learned Counsel has no objection to the delay being condoned. We are satisfied that the delay is to be condoned and accordingly allow the COD application.2. Now we come to the application for stay filed by the Revenue. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that credit availed and utilised by the respondents herein on kerosene wick stove parts prior to 23/07/1996 when such parts were dutiable is not required to be reversed after 23/07/1996 when such parts become exempt from payment of duty. He has also directed consequential relief which results in not only payment of the refund amount but also interest. It is against the payment of interest that the application for stay has been filed.3. Learned DR submits that there is...

Johnson and Johnson Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.4,19,032/- confirmed as duty on magnical tablets manufactured by the applicant herein as a result of classifying the product under sub-heading 2108.99 as "other miscellaneous edible food preparations", rejecting the applicant's claim for classification as P&P medicines under sub-heading 3003.10, and imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.3. The contention of the applicant that the item in question is used to prevent pre-eclampsia which leads to hypertension and swelling of feet in pregnant and lactating women and that the tablets are also used for prevention of Vitamin-D deficiency and prevents premature labour, that it is sold under prescription and that it is not commonly available but available only in chemist's shop, etc. has not been rebutted by the Revenue. The Revenue rests its case upon the fact that the composition of the item namely, zinc, calcium and magnesium are not such as to make the item a P&P medicine but only a so...

Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC641

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of the refractory blocks imported by the appellant for the benefit of notification 77/90. The Assistant Commissioner denied the exemption on two grounds - that the goods were blocks and not bricks, which were specified in the notification, they were not components of the furnace.The Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit on the second ground, keeping silent on the first ground.Steel Authority of India vs. CC 2000 (115) ELT 42 has held that benefit of notification 242/76 could not be denied to refractory blocks. It had noted a trade notice of the Bombay Custom House that refractory blocks of special shape were covered by the expression "bricks of special shape", exempted by the notification. The two notification are identically worded. We therefore find merit for the appellant on this point. The second issue is also covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. vs. ...

Voltas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Appellants manufacture Refrigerators. With effect from 28.2.94 the duty on Refrigerators was changed from specific rated to advolorem.No sales were effected at the factory gate. Sales were effected from 26 depots situated all over the country. The Appellants filed a price list dated 21.3.1994. They had certain difficulty in giving certain figures and therefore they requested that the assessments be kept provisional.They filed a provisional assessment bond and submitted details of agreements with 3 classes of buyers viz. Whole Sale Dealers, Sale and Service Dealers; and Only Sales Dealers. Subsequently, from time to time price declarations were filed. The prices at which the refrigerators were sold to these 3 varieties of buyers were different.The prices charged from the only sales dealers (OSD) were the highest.Show Cause Notice dated 7.1.99 was issued proposing to adopt the price charged to OSD as the price for assessment for all clearances. Before the Assistant Commissioner t...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The short point for consideration in this appeal is the classification of sugar cubes. The Assistant Collector classified them under sub-heading 1701.90. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that even after conversion from sugar to cubes the commodity continued to fall under sub-heading 1701.39. In holding so he relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Union if India Vs. Delhi Cloth General Mills 1977(1) ELT 199. The Revenue agitates and seeks the same classification as was held by the Assistant Collector.2. We have heard Shri M.H. Shaikh for the Revenue and Shri A.V. Naik for the respondent.3. The issue has been squarely settled by the Tribunal judgement in the case of DCM Shriram Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1996 (84) ELT 221. The Tribunal has held that the sugar after conversion into cubes form would continue to fall either under subheading 1701.31 or 1701.39 and since the sugar cubes are not sold as levy sugar the proper sub-heading would be 1701.39.4. Fo...

Standard Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that, before he passed the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner did not give the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The appellant did not receive any notice of personal hearing.3. The Commissioner has not considered the reply dated 4th May, 1999 (received by him on the next day) of the appellant. His order is entirely non-speaking.4. That order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed. The Commissioner shall now pass orders on the show cause notice, dealing with the contention of the appellant and any submissions that the appellant's representative may make at the personal hearing, for which a reasonable notice should be issued....

Nrc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC637

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of nylon filament yarn manufactured and captively consumed by the appellant. The department has based such value on the price at which the appellant sold the yarn. It however did not accept the contention of the appellant that the yarn which was sold underwent processes to which the captively consumed yarn was not subject and that in determining the value of captively consumed yarn, deduction must be made on account of the expenses incurred on the processes.2. These processes, it is stated, are "aging or reconditioning of the yarn; rewinding of paper containers in the form of cheeses and subsequent packing". The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the contention which is raised before him on the ground that nothing other than yarn that it captively consumed. In doing so, she has disregarded the proviso under rule 6(b)(i) which requires adjustment to be made between the value of comparable goods and the value...

Shree Vishnu Dyeing and Printing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The director of the applicant is present. He says that the applicant ha snot deposited the amount, wants further period of 10 days to deposit the amount.2. The Tribunal's order disposing of the stay application was dictated on 22.3.2001. The Tribunal asked for a deposit of Rs.25 lakhs (out of the duty, penalty and fine totalling Rs.7.606 crores approximately). An application was filed seeking modification of this order. In the order disposing of that application, the Tribunal noted the statement of the counsel on instruction, that the applicant to file a bank guarantee of Rs.25 lakhs within two weeks from that date. Accepting this submission, it modified the order, permitted bank guarantee to be filed by 31st July, 2001.3. The director present us does not have any satisfactory explanation for not having filed the bank guarantee. He says that he has taken time to get the bank of agree to issue a bank guarantee. He is not able to explain why he misled the counsel by saying that bank ...

Mini Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application was called up the applicants were not present nor represented. There was no application for adjournment. We therefore proceed to decide this application on the basis of documents on record.2. The appellants were operating under the provisions of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Their liability was computed at Rs. 4,53,443/- per month.During the period August, 1999 to January, 2000 the liability so fastened was Rs. 27,20,658/-. They had applied for abetment for the period 16/08/1999 to 15/03/2000 on the ground that their stenter was sealed. However, in a surprise check on 23/04/2000 it was found that during that period the assessee had cleared unstentered fabrics. In terms of sub-rule 7(a) of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the Commissioner denied the request for abetment as communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 24/10/2000. Subsequently show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of ...