Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Prime Machines Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal has been filed against order F.No.324/MVI/2000/0104 dt. 12.1.2001. We have gone through this order and find that this is not a final order on the appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) but is only a order rejecting the stay application filed by the assessees. Since the order challenged before us is not a final order passed by the lower appellate authority, appeal is not maintainable against such order. Therefore we dismiss the appeal, as not maintainable....

Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT278Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant manufactures certain types of machinery. Among these are dairy machinery and parts thereof on which the rate of duty is nil, and some other machinery which it cleared without payment of duty to the Indian Navy in terms of an exemption notification. The applicant was therefore required in terms of Rule 57CC to pay an amount equal to 8% of the sale price of such goods. The applicant included in the price of the dairy machinery and the goods sold to the Navy this 8%. The invoice included as an element of price an amount of "8% Modvat reversal under Rule 57CC".2. This invited a notice from the Department proposing to recover this amount in terms of Section 11D of the Act. The notice was confirmed by the Commissioner. The applicant is therefore required to deposit a sum of Rs. 22.90 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in order to pursue the appeal that it has filed.3. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the amount to be deposited in Rule 57CC is not in the na...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sensotherm India (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC793

1. The respondent herein are engaged in the manufacture of Thermowells, Instrument Cables, Control Cables and Process Control Equipment, etc., falling under Chapters 85 and 90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show cause notice dated 5-8-1993 was issued to them proposing recovery of duty on three grounds: (i) That they had cleared certain goods i.e., Thermowells without payment of duty of Rs. 9,706/-; (ii) Compensating Cables/Thermo Couple Cables had been wrongly classified by them under CETA heading 90.32 as the same were correctly classifiable under heading 85.44 resulting in short levy of Rs. 6,94,753/-; and (iii) That the appellant had undervalued their goods involving duty demand of Rs. 1,56,491/-.2. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise who dropped all the charges raised in the notice. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner dropping the demand.3. At the outset the learned Counsel for the res...

Hem International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The counsel for the applicant states that the application for condonation of delay of seven days has been filed as a measure of abundant caution because he was not sure as to the date when the applicant received the order.2. The order of the Commissioner is stated to have been issued to the applicant, who is located at Morbi, on 30.10.00. The appeal has been received by the Tribunal on 7.2.2001. A period of seven days does not appear unduly long for the order to have been received by the applicant....

Omprakash Mehra and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant textures polyester yarn. It subjects such yarn either twisting or dyeing or both and clears such twisted and/or dyed yarn for home consumption. The order impugned in this appeal demands duty on the ground that the value of the textured yarn which it captively consumed in making the twisted and dyed yarn should includ the cost of twisting and dyeing. A penalty has also been imposed.2. Since the notice and the order seems unclear, we asked the departmental representative to categorically state his stand. He explains that the department's case is as we leave understood above.3. If that is the case the demand is prima facie not maintainable. We would then be concerned with the valuation of the yarn which were deemed to be removed for being subjected to the processes of twisting and/or dyeing. The value of such yarn obviously cannot include the cost of the processes for subjecting to which it is issued.4. In this prima facie view of the matter we waive deposit of the duty ...

Diviya Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC788

1. The appellant exported dye intermediates, and as a result, obtained a value based advance licence entitling it to import goods free of duty in terms of notification 203/92. It imported such goods between the years 1992 and 1994, clearing them without payment of duty in terms of the notification. Notice dated 6.12.1998 issued to the appellant, proposed recovery of the customs duty payable on the goods imported by it which had been foregone by applying Notification 203/92. The notice alleged that the benefit of the notification was not available for the reason that one of the conditions subject to which exemption is available, that modvat credit should not have been availed in the manufacture of the export product, had been contravened. The appellant filed its reply in March 1998. It contended therein that it had reversed the amount of duty taken as credit as also the interest payable on such duty, and was therefore covered by the Amnesty Scheme which was introduced from 3.1.1997. In...

A.W. Faber Castell (India) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported writing and similar instruments from Faber Castell, a company in Germany and its associated firms in other parts of the world. The Custom House found that the appellant was related to Faber Castell, within the meaning of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the valuation Rules as is held 90% of its stock. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders enhancing the value of imports made by the appellant Faber Castell and associates by 20%.2. The appellant appealed this order. Disposing of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the appeal was only on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner had not heard the appellant. He found that this was incorrect and therefore dismissed the appeal.3. The appeal that the appellant filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), could have been better drafted; it also does not contain grounds of appeal separately to the statement of facts. Nevertheless, it is not possible to accept as correct the conclusion of the Commissioner (Ap...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Pan Consultant

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC137Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Pan Consultant, Ahmedabad, the respondent to this appeal, imported a scanner and cleared it on payment of duty. Subsequently,it filed a claim for refund of part of the duty that it paid on the ground that the goods were entitled to assessment at lower rate of duty under Heading 98.01 of the tariff. Notice was issued to it accepting the correctness of this claim for refund and proposing to deposit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund and not to the claimant on the ground that it has not been shown that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. The Assistant Commissioner, after considering the reply of the claimant, concluded that it has not been shown that the incidence of duty has been passed on and ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The importer appealed this order. Disposing of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), relying substantially on the decision in Solar Pesticides Pvt Ltd v. Union of India 1992 (520 ELT 201, held that in the case of g...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. Vijay Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The departmental representative agrees that the goods in question were already cleared under a provisional assessment. There are no grounds in the stay application also....

Salora International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to recover duty on the ground that it had imported in terms of an advance licence, on the ground that the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92, which had been extended, was not available, since the condition contained in that notification, that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of the exported goods, have been contravened. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal confirmed the proposal in the notice. The Commissioner finds that there was no reply to the notice.3. The representative of the appellant says that the appellantcould not reply to the notice for the reason that it did not receive it. Apart from that, the appellant did not import the goods at all. It was issued an advance licence which is referred to in the notice. It sold this advance licence to another person.4. The notice purports t...