Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Resina Combination Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1019Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case the bill of entry No.262423 dated 31/07/1992,was field by the Custom House Agents for clearance of 35 drums of goods, declared as tung oil , on behalf of the importers M/s. Resina Combination, Bombay. The importers subscribed to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of the bill of entry and further subscribed to a declaration that they did not received did not know any other document or information showing different price, value, quantity or description of the goods. The bill of entry was assessed to duty on 04/08/1992 accepting the value declared at 65%+45% under heading 1515.40 CTA together with the benefit of notification 17/91-CE for levy of additional duty.2. When the goods were about to be taken delivery, DRI was in receipt of intelligence that the subject import had been undervalued with intention to evade payment of duty. Hence the clearance of the consignment was stopped and the duplicate bill of entry was collected from the CHA. Perusal of the documen...

M/S. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen.Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein manufacture Anilofos Technical chargeable to nil rate of duty. During the manufacture of the product, an intermediate product known as CAIPPCA comes into existence on which duty was paid under protest as per Asst. Collector Satara's order. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune held that the intermediate product is non-excisable and hence the assessee filed a claim for refund of duty paid during March, 1991 to July 1991. The intermediate product was exempted from payment of duty by Notification No. 33/91 dated 25.7.91 but the assessee continued to pay the excise duty as it was not aware of the Notification. Therefore, they filed another refund claim for the period 25.7.19 to 31.7.91 also. Both the claims were rejected by the Asst. Commissioner on the ground that duty paid on the intermediate product captively consumed has gone into the cost of the final product. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal against the rejection of the claims on the...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Ralliwolf Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein manufacture portable electric tools and parts thereof and other products. They had declared two prices; one for sale within Maharashtra and the other for sale outside Maharashtra. The Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand holding that the normal price is the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold to the buyers in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for sale and this provision leaves no scope for any doubt for not charging different prices to different buyers in different regions especially when the price lists are filed in Part.I. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that there can be two prices for the same goods, one for the sale within Maharashtra and the other for sale outside Maharashtra and thus allowed their appeal. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard both sides. It...

M/S Choksi Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC104Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein imported goods described as Medical X-Ray film ie. Scopix MFB and Scopix ICIB brand unexposed photographic films and claimed classification of the same under heading 3701.10 and 3702.10 of the Central Excise Tariff as X-Ray films read with Notification No.13/94 CE. The department was on the view from the details available that none of the films imported were for use for exposure by X-rays as the same were understood to be canted with emulsion sensitive to visible light radiation emitted by the various equipments used in digesting/imaging procedure viz. general purpose video imaging procedure and sine imaging procedure. Such films are said to be used for recording of images in CT, MRI, DBA Angiography, ultra sonography etc. Since the films were held to be not for direct use for X-rays, the classification claimed by the importers was not accepted and a show cause notice was issued to them on the ground that they had willfully mis-declared the goods since they we...

M/S Godavari Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been field by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Cental Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, whereunder he has confirmed the show cause notice by demanding duty of Rs.39,17,983/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.39,17,983/- under section 11AC of the Cental Excise Act. Show cause notice dated 6.1.1998 has been issued against the assessee who was manufacturing M.S. Round Bars, on the following grounds:- 2. It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellants that the production which has been assumed by the adjudicating authority at a very high level namely nearly 200% not in a legal and proper manner. Learned counsel further states that he reliance has been placed on the hand-books prepared by the workers by the adjudicating authority in passing the impugned order which is deprecated by the Tribunal's in decisions rendered in certain cases. The learned counsel further submits that the approach of the adjudicating authority in deciding t...

M/S. Peacock Industries Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These 3 applications relate to 3 appeals all arising out of the same order. These are, therefore, being disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. Peacock Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to PIL) imported 224 MT of HDPE and sold the same on High Sea Sale basis to M/s. Taneja Exports. M/s. Taneja Exports were granted an advance licence. The goods were cleared in 14 lots by M/s. Rashmi Shipping Agency, CHA.Subsequently, it was found that the subject licence was forged.Investigations were, thereafter, made which indicated the one Mr.Deepak Ganatra was a licence broker who had received the subject licence from one Mr. Pritipal Singh. Mr. Pritipal Singh had named two other persons viz. Kishen Sharma and Satvir Singh as the persons who had obtained the licence. Shri Deepak Ganatra and Jayesh Tanna were in the same line of business and were related persons. Shri Jayesh Tanna were in the same line of business and were related persons. Shri Jayesh Tanna mediated between M/s. PIL and M/...

Shree Lamitex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT556Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of a composite product that the appellant manufactured. The product consists of a layer of kraft paper, which is bonded by means of coating of low density polyethylene with a layer of high density polyethylene fabric. The laminated product is used, we are told manufacture of bags.2. The goods have been classified by the Assistant Commissioner (Division-III, Vadodara) whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under heading 3926.90. The heading 3926.00 is for other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of heading 39.01 to 39.14. The appellant's claim is for classification under heading 4811.30 as "paper and paper board coated, impregnated or covered with plastics".3. After hearing both sides, we are not able to accept the classification decided by the department. For one thing these sheets of composite fabric of plastic and paper cannot be called articles of plastics. Even if they w...

Taj Air Caterers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC247Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner in imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant on Taj Air Caterers.2. The brief facts are these. The appellant operates a flight kitchen at Sahar International Airport which supplies food and other provisions to aircraft proceeding from Mumbai to other destinations on international flights. This activity involves traffic in both men and materials between the flight kitchen which is located at the premises of the appellant and the aircraft parked at the airport. Meals and other provisions and equipment are loaded on board the aircraft before take-off; after arrival goods such as discarded items, unconsumed meals, garbage etc. are removed from the aircraft and brought to the flight kitchen. The appellant had an agreement with Cathay Pacific Airlines for this purpose. We are concerned in this appeal with the flight of this airline which arrived at Mumbai on 13.4.1992 from Hong Kong. As is usual, a high-lift truck capable of b...

Rajesh Wire Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty of Rs. 47,695/- has been demanded, and penalty of Rs. 4,500/- imposed on the finding that Consales Inc. was related to the applicant, and the assessable value of the goods that the applicant sold to that firm is to be based on the price at which the latter sold them.2. Counsel for the applicant contends that the process that the applicant undertook of drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture, citing in support the decision of the Tribunal in Puranmal Bansal v. CCE 2000 (122) ELT 690.3. The departmental representative's contention that this question has not been raised earlier is not relevant, a question of law can be raised at any stage. We note his contention that the decision of the Tribunal requires reconsideration. At this stage, we are bound by it.4. We therefore waive deposit of duty and penalty and stay their recovery....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the department seeks to question the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, is entitled to take modvat credit on an authenticated photocopy of a gate pass.2. The Commissioner has relied upon some unspecified instructions of the Board permitting such credit to be taken. The department's appeal contends the Board's instructions required a particular procedure to be followed, which the manufacturer had not followed. The reference in the department's appeal to a particular instruction contained in a letter is somewhat misleading. Instructions are contained in a circular 44/86-dated 29.10.1986 of the Board which provides that a circular of 1982 issued in relation to proforma credit under rule 56A.will apply to the modvat scheme.3. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The departmental representative is unable to produce the circular before us but produces the trade notice no. 192/...