Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

ispl Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal was filed along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty. In the stay application, financial hardship was not pleaded. The Tribunal passed order on 23.6.01. This order was ex-parte because in spite of notice the appellant had not appeared. On examination of balance sheet placed on record, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 1.80 lakhs. Today, when the matter was posted for compliance no one is present but there is a written submission to the effect that a reference was made to BIFR on 7.9.2000. It is claimed that when a reference is made, no action can be taken against the appellant without the consent of BIFR. This statement is without merit. In the absence of pleadings in the appeal papers and in the absence of any substantiation of the claim, I dismiss this appeal for non compliance of the Tribunal order in terms of Sec 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sona Somic Components Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT737Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods imported by the respondent. The invoices that accompanied the three consignments described them as parts of motor vehicles. The importer initially claimed their classification under heading 87.08 of the tariff, which is parts of motor vehicles, but amended the bill of entry to claim their classification as forged articles of iron or steel under heading 26.19. The Assistant Commissioner held the goods to be motor vehicle parts; the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside his order holding that it had been established that the goods were forged articles and required various operations before they can be used as motor vehicle parts.3. Neither of the two orders furnishes any acceptable reasons for its conclusion. The Assistant Commissioner says that, in coming to his conclusion, he has studied the drawings, catalogue, sample of the goods and the written submissions of the importer. He does not say what he found i...

Melstar Information Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT743Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of parts of blinker lantern.The customs house issued notice to him proposing confiscation of the goods and penalty on the importer on the ground that they were consumer goods as defined in paragraph 156 of the relevant Import Policy, and their import required a specific licence. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the importer.2. The advocate for the appellant contends that it imported the goods in order to take them to its factory in the Santacruz Electronic Export Processing Zone for conversion into electronic lanterns to be exported.Therefore, the benefit of paragraph 94 of the Import Policy would be available, and confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty are not called for.3. Paragraph 94 of the Policy provided that an export oriented united or unit in an export processing zo...

M/S Pet Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, I find that the appeal can be taken up for disposal. I proceed to do so on granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.2. The Commissioner in the impugned dismissed the appeal before him for the failure of the appellant to comply with his direction in the stay order. I see from the original order that the duty had already been deposited even prior to the passing of the adjudication order. The Counsel shows me that the various penalties imposed had also been paid.3. I find that the ld. Commissioner had made a grave error in not appreciating these facts. Perhaps if he had directed the appellant to appear before him, these issues could have been sorted out.4. Appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remanded back to the Commissioner who shall proceed to hear the appellants on merits without insisting on pre-deposit of any left over penalty or duty....

M/S Power Build Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT896Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are not present but requested disposal of the case on merits. The appellants cleared certain inputs under Rule 57F(1)(ii) on payment of duty equivalent to modvat credit taken. Since the first manufacture has paid concessional rate of duty, in the proceedings differential duty was demanded. Hence, the appeal. This issue stands duly covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Vadodara vs Asia Brown Boveri Ltd [2000(39) RLT 575 (CEGAT.L.B.). The appeal is, therefore, allowed with consequential benefit....

Shaily Engineering Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. With consent, the appeal is taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit.2. The two notices issued to the appellant proposed classification of certain parts of machinery manufactured by the appellant in heading 85.30 of the tariff, declining to accept the manufacturer's claim for classification in heading 8608.00, and demanded duty consequentially payable of Rs. 36,450/-. In his order the Assistant Commissioner has said that the goods are classifiable under an altogether different heading, 8538.00 and confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 91,125/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed this order.3. By determining a classification not proposed to the manufacturer which he had no opportunity to answer and by confirming an amount larger than that mentioned in the notice, the Assistant Commissioner has clearly gone beyond the scope of the notice. His order therefore cannot be maintained.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.The matter is remanded to t...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Saibaba Ship Breaking

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC447

1. The respondents to these applications, except Chaudhry Industries, are represented before us by counsels. After hearing parties on the stay applications filed by the department we have, with their consent, decided to take up the appeals themselves for disposal.2. Each of the responders was at the relevant time engaged in breaking up of ships. That is to say, it imported a ship, beached it at Port Alang removed from it salvageable materials and parts, and thereafter reduced the ship to scrap, such scrap being cleared on payment of excise duty applicable to the appropriate headings any of the chapters from 72 to 81 of the tariff. Each of these Chapters is for metals and their products and contains a heading for goods and materials obtained by breaking of ships and other floating structure. Almost without exception, the contract entered into between the purchaser and the seller specifies that the ship is to be brought to Alang by the sellers and then delivered to the buyer. The ships ...

Ceat Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT702Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the penalty imposed on the appellant of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q and confiscation of tyres, tubes and flaps valued at Rs. 2.32 crores, scrap valued at Rs. 1.28 lakhs, two tyre curing machines valued at Rs. 4.77 lakhs, which have been permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 21.84 lakhs.2. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the contravention for which these find and penalty was adjudged, failure to enter the daily production in RG1 register of tyres, tubes, flaps for 3 days in May 1995; the same contravention for a period of 21 days in the same month for scrap, and the removal for captive consumption without filing requisite documents, of the two machines which the Commissioner says the appellant manufactured. He, however, says that these contraventions are purely technical. There was not the slightest attempt to evade any duty. Duty had been paid on the tyres, tubes, flaps and scraps on their removal during the period in question. Details ...

M/S Nagpur Rubber Factory (Pvt.) Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There was a fire accident in the appellants' factory. The remission of duty amounting to Rs. 9764.26 was not granted by the Commissioner.In the follow up proceedings, the demand was confirmed. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal for failure of the assessee to pre-deposit the disputed amount of duty.2. Today the case was posted for admission. But looking at the issue, this was taken up for disposal.3. The situation in which duty is confirmed on denial of remission stands necessarily on different footing than other circumstances leading to the issue of demand Prima-facie, from the observations made by the Commissioner in rejecting the remission application, the assessee's case does not seem to be weak. It is not known whether any appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals). He shall hear the appellants without insisting on any pre-deposit....

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. V.V.N. Mfg. and Investa Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the present case modvat credit was denied on the ground that the gate pass was endorsed more than twice. The Commissioner relying upon the Tribunal order in the case of S.B.S. Organics (P) Ltd. reversed the decision. Hence the appeal from Revenue.2. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the Board had accepted the subject decision only for that assessee and not as of universal application.3. I find that the subject decision was adopted by the Tribunal subsequently in a number of judgments (1999 107 ELT 102) I also find that the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs Priyaknat Carbon & Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd.CCE vs Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. [2001(42) RLT 475] had dismissed the reference application on the very issue where the Tribunal had followed the S.B.S. Organics judgment....