Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

M/S Chetan Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT381Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it is appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be disposed of. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the sums confirmed and imposed as prayed for.2. The Commissioner in the impugned order imposed penalty of Rs. 55,000/- and also confirmed demand of Rs. 11,16,468/-. The ground for this action was that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Notification No. 203/92 Cus in as much as in the manufacture of export goods, the input stage credit had been availed of. In doing so, the Commissioner observed that the appellant had not filed any reply nor had they appeared for personal hearing.3. Before us, the appellant placed a copy of reply dated 24.3.99 duly received in the Custom House on 1.4.99. In the reply it was claimed that the export goods were not subject to any duty. In the appeal memorandum it is further claimed that the appellants were the transferee holder of the licence ...

Usv Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for determination in this case is as to what is the price to be adopted for goods captively consumed when sales of identical goods by the same assessee also take place. It is the contention of the appellant against the duty demand confirmed on the ground that the sale price to outside customer is to be adopted for captive consumption also, that under the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules viz. Rule 6, certain adjustments are permissible. In their case, they submit that adjustments are required to be given because the price is inclusive of payment of commission of Rs. 3142.95 and, therefore, they submit that the price adopted of Rs. 49,000/- per kg which is the price at which they sold the goods during the period March 1992 to Torrent Pharmaceuticals is not correct. Regarding the plea that the demand is barred by limitation, it is their submission that even though price lists for Torrent Pharmaceuticals at Rs. 49,000/- per kg. of bulk drugs manufactured by them had been file...

The Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of the yarn that the appelnat manufactured by twisting polyester yarn with cotton yarn. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that this yarn is liable to duty as a new product, and said that the rate of duty that would apply is the one applicable to heading 5403 of the tariff in which the yarn was classified as claimed by the manufacturer.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the contents of the memorandum of appeal.3. We are not able to accept the first ground that doubting of yarn does not amount of manufacture because a new product does not come into existence.4. In case where yarn of two different kinds is twisted together, as in this case, what emerges is neither one or the other but a completely new product. Doubled yarn that the appellant manufactured is commercially neither known as polyester yarn nor cotton yarn. Nor is it technically o...

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. First Sir Export (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The case of the Revenue in appeal is that part of the goods imported as Zinc Scrap were in fact Zinc Anodes. It is claimed that the Commissioner was wrong in going merely by the purity of the Zinc and in holding that since the purity was less than that prescribed for zinc anodes, the goods were not mis-declared. In appeal, the Revenue claimed that the Commissioner has disregarded the confessional statement of the importers' officers and also the marking of the packages declaring that the goods were zinc anodes.2. When the application first came up for hearing on 3.5.01, the departmental representative was asked to clarify whether the goods were still under the custody or whether they were cleared. Today, Shri Shaikh shows us a communication from the office of the Appealing Commissioner dated 13.7.01 to the effect that the goods were released on payment of duty as claimed by the importer. In that situation, there is no point in proceeding with the application for stay of operation o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Narayan Processors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondents were entitled to cash refund of the credit accumulated in the modvat account, in relation to inputs that it used in the manufacture of processed fabrics which they exported.2. The reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) advances for the cash refund is that the respondents were not permitted by the departmental officers to use the credit towards payment of duty on the fabrics. The application questions this finding pointing out that there is no evidence in support of this conclusion.3. The representative of the respondents point to a letter of 30.7.1997 of the Chairman of the Board to the Commissioner of Central Excise in support of the Commissioner (Appeals)' conclusion. This letter indicates to the Commissioner that textile processing sector is one of the major evasion prone areas and asks him to ensure that, from August 1997 revenue realised from an independent processor does not work out less than Rs ...

M/S Happy Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants are working under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. After giving abatement to certain chambers of the stenters, the Commissioner confirmed differential duty of Rs. 377/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants. The appellants claimed that the demand has arisen due to calculating the length of gallaries towards the computation of number of chambers. The Tribunal judgment is cited whereby such inclusion was not required. Prima-facie, there is merit in this statement and the applications are allowed. Unconditional stay and waiver is granted....

Brimco Plastic Machinery P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT583Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were not present. We are deciding the appeal on merits after hearing Shri George, JDR for the Revenue.2. The appellants had taken advance from their buyers of their products. Show cause notice was issued mentioning this fact and seeking addition to the assessable value of the notional interest accruable on such advances. The Asstt. Commissioner placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. [1995 (75) ELT 449] and confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance on the judgment in the same case and upheld the order. Hence, this appeal.3. We have considered the submissions made in the appeal memorandum and heard Shri George. In the case of the cited judgment, the situation was peculiar in as much as the entire production of the unit was purchased by the buyer who had advanced large sums of money to the manufacturer.In a number of cases, the issue of includability was examined including by the Supreme Court themselves in t...

Century Rayon, Century Textile Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal demands duty on the ground that the goods that the appellant imported were not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92. The show cause notice advances, as a reason for the denial, that the appellant had availed modvat credit in the manufacture of the exported goods, and thus contravened one of the condition sin the notification.3. The Commissioner records that, despite three opportunities being given to it, the appellant did not produce the certificate of the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities that it had reversed the modvat credit that it had taken. This is questioned by the counsel for the appellant. He cites a letter dated 17.8.2000 of the appellant to the Commissioner which refers to a hearing held on the previous day, and purports to enclose a certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. This letter ...

Shiva Suiting Ltd., Ashok Dinde, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This group of nine appeals is against the common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III. In that order, the Commissioner has confirmed a demand for duty issued to Shiva Suiting Ltd (Shiva for short), a processor of textile fabrics, and imposed penalty on it under Rule 173Q. He has ordered confiscation of the fabrics seized from the appellant's factory and godown, and its land, building, plant, machinery etc, permitted their redemption on payment of fine. He has also imposed penalties under Rule 209A on D.P. Kagzi, D.K. Sanghai, K.P. Shanghai, directors of Shiva and S.P. Singh, S.N.Vaishney, Ashok Dinde and K.N. Bhatt, its employees.2. Mr Naresh Thacker, advocate for the appellants, requests and adjournment on the ground that he has not received papers from K.V.Iyer & Associates, Advocates & Solicitors. Mr Sunil Chhabria, of this firm who was present in the Court to day has no explanation to offer except saying that Ms Kanta Iyer of this firm told him to mee...

Midas Business Machines P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals were taken up for disposal after waiving the deposit and with consent of both sides.2. The appellants before us were engaged in the manufacture of computer systems falling under sub-heading 8471.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the search conducted in December, 1997 it transpires that the assessees were manufacturing the computer system and were procuring various parts and assembling the same. They did not get themselves registered under the Central Excise Act and pay the duty according to the value of the product manufactured by them.The department issued a show cause noticed dated 18.5.1998 calling upon the assessees to pay duty and also proposed to impose penalty for violations of various provisions of the Act and Rules. The replies to show cause notices were field. Written submissions were field. It is the case of the appellants before use that the advocate for the appellants could nt appear before the adjudicating authority due to cerat...