Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

S.J. Shah and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that the appeal that S.J. Shah filed before him was barred by limitation. He finds that the appellant has not submitted the certified copy of the order of the Additional Commissioner which is impugned in the appeal, and not mentioned the date of communication of the order.He finds that the appellant received the order on 29.1.1998, but showed it to have been received on 30.10.1998 and filed the appeal on 24.2.1999. He concludes by saying that, even taking 30.10.1998 as the date of receipt of the order, the appeal is still barred by limitation, and dismissed it.3. We do not find any material on the basis of which the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to his conclusion. If the Commissioner were of the view that the appeal was barred by limitation, he should have given notice to the appellant to answer this point, and thereafter procee...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Arvind CotspIn Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification 1/95-CE dated 04/01/1995 to insulating material used in humidification plant. The Revenue in this appeal have challenged this order on the ground that such material is used or maintenance of capital goods and therefore does not fall under the purview of the notification.2. The humidification plant or any plant which seeks to maintain the temperature or humidity would have insulation material as an integral part. Even otherwise the notification permits duty free receipt of "materials and spares thereof". Even if it is accepted that such material is for maintenance, then the phrase "spares" would cover the same.3. We find the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order sustains and dismiss this appeal from Revenue....

Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A demand of Rs. 11,79,720.54 has been confirmed and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been confirmed on the ground of violation of the provisions of Notification 203/92 which stipulates that in order to avail of duty free clearance of inputs, no credit should have been availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. In this case M/s.International Ribbon Manufacturing Company, held the licence, exported the goods manufactured on their behalf by M/s. Addonix Computers Pvt.Ltd. and the transferred the licence to M/s. Rashi Peripherals Pvt.Ltd. Both Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. and International Ribbon Manufacturing Company have filed the appeals along with stay applications.2. It is the contention of the learned counsel that neither applicant M/s/ Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. have received the show cause notice nor notice of hearing while M/s.International Ribbon Manufacturing Company has received the show cause notice dated 26/03/1999 only in January, 2000 and filed a reply in...

D.S. Kothari Hospital and S.M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT629Tri(Mum.)bai

1. D.S. Kothari Hospital, Mumbai, imported two consignments of medical equipment, consisting of gastro fibrescope with accessories and fibre optic endoscope with accessories in 1991 and August, 1993. The hospital claimed and was granted benefit of notification 64/88. The notification exempts medical equipment from payment of duty subject to condition prescribed therein. Consequent upon reports of vide spread misuse of the notification, a committee referred to as the Rosha Committee was appointed on the orders of the Supreme Court to enquire into various aspects of the matter. The Committee by its letter dated 7.4.1998 requested the Commissioner of Custos to institute an enquiry regarding fulfilment by the appellant the conditions subject to which the exemption was granted to it. Enquiries were taken up by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, through which the goods are imported. In the course of enquiry the hospital submitted a statement of patients treated by it for the pe...

M/S Ma-care, Shri K.K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC674

1. Common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together. Appeals No. E/4087-4092/98-Bom. were filed against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay whereas the duty has been demanded from M/s. TTK Pharma Limited on the ground that the product known as Woodward's Gripe water which is stated to be manufactured by M/s. Ma-Care was in fact manufactured by M/s. TTK Pharma Ltd. and, therefore, assessable value should be based on the price at which M/s. TTK Pharma Ltd sold the goods to its dealer.Personnel penalties were also imposed on the appellants under Rule 209 and 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.Appeals No. E/1361 to 1364/2000-Mum. were filed against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the adjudication authority held that M/s. Ma-Care and TTK Pharma Ltd. entered into an agreement so as to create a facade that the activities of M/s. Ma-Care and M/s. TTK Pharma Ltd. were at arms lengt...

Kanti S. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise has determined the rate of excise duty payable by the applicant who are covered under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000 as under:- a. For the period December, 1999 to February, 200 @ Rs. 1.5 lakhs per chamber per month.2. It is the contention of the applicant that for the first period the length of the gallery has been included while computing the average value of production per chamber per month and it has bee held by the Tribunal by its larger bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara vs. CCE, Jaipur 2001 (127) ELT 679 that gallery length is not required to be included in the length of the chamber for the purpose of determination of duty payable under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000. Regarding the determination for the period March, 2000 he submits that the length of the chamber has been wrongly taken and in this con...

Amrut Corporation, Kantawala and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT499Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three applications relate to three appeals arising out of a single order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. These are therefore disposed off vide this common order.2. Kantawala & Sons and Dilip Chain Industries Pvt. Ltd. had imported certain machinery for manufacture of jewellery in terms of notifications prescribing concessional rate of duty. M/s. Amrut Corporation were indenting agent for M/s. Sisma, manufacturer of such machinery. On search of the premises of the two manufacturers certain machines so imported were seized under the belief that the importers were not eligible for the benefit of the notification. In the case of three machines prima facie the conclusion was that they had been undervalued. After issue of show cause notices and after hearing the concerned persons the Commissioner passed the impugned orders whereby the machines imported by M/s. Kantawala & Sons were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The te...

KishIn Shewaram Loungani Vs. Commr. of Cus., Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC664

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 28-3-1997 Air India Security Officers apprehended a passenger, Pankaj Mansukhlal Jagda (Appellant No. 2) bound for Dubai by Air India Flight No. AI-729 at Air India baggage screening machine at the Bombay Airport. He was handed over to the officers of the AIU along with his baggage. He was asked by the Customs officers whether he was carrying any foreign currency in his baggage or on his person to which he replied in the affirmative stating that he was carrying some foreign exchange in his black zipper suitcase, search of which resulted in recovery of five bundles of assorted foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 28,01,257.5, wrapped in black carbon paper.2. The currency was seized in the reasonable belief that it was attempted to be smuggled out of India. Statement of Pankaj Jagda was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which he stated that the currency had been given to him by one Kishin Shewaram Loungani (Appellant No. 2), ...

Unique Industrial Handlers P. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to inclusion in the value for assessment of the goods manufactured by the appellant of the notional interest on the advances of the sale price of inputs that it received from purchaser. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has, overruling the finding of the Assistant Commissioner, held that such notional interest would form part of the assessable value.2. In its decision in appeals E/1583 and 1625/96 ( Moosa Haji Patrawala P. Ltd. and Unique Industrial Handlers P. Ltd. s. CCE ), the Tribunal had held that in the absence of anything to show that the facts of advances taken of the price of goods, such notional interest could not be included in the assessable value.3. Applying the ratio of the decision, we hold that the interest was not includable, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order....

Pressure Pack P. Ltd. and Shivnath Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant before him on one point.This would result in the duty that has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner requiring it to be recalculated. Counsel for the appellant states that his has not been done. In this situation where the amount of duty that is required to be deposited by the appellant is not known, the stay application is unnecessary and is accordingly dismissed.3. Shivnath Kanoria in appeal E/3575/00 stated to be the managing director of Pressure Pack P. Ltd. whose appeal is numbered E/3574/00.The Deputy Commissioner had passed a common order demanding duty on Pressure Pack P. Ltd. and imposing a penalty on Shivnath Kanoria. The order No. RJB/265/M.II/2000 dated 27.7.2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is appealed before us purports to dispose of the appeal by Pressure Pack P. Ltd. It is entirely silent about any appeal having been filed by Shivnath Kanoria. Th...