Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Shree Ram Textile and Processing (i) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability of the rail length of the galleries which formed part of the stenter in the appellant's factory to be taken into account while deciding its capacity in accordance with rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2001 (42) RLT 429 has concluded that this rail length is not to be included in the capacity. The determination of the capacity made by the Commissioner by including this rail length therefore cannot be sustained.4. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall now determine the capacity without including the rail length of the galleries....

Hindustan Platinum Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The claim for refund of Rs. 15,50,402/- filed by the appellants was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs by the order dt. 23.2.94 on the ground that the importers failed to substantiate their case with reference to any documentary evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that refund was not admissible holding that the assessable value at which the importers purchased the goods in question rejected Palladium ingots or MMTC on High Sea Sale Basis is to be taken as deemed price at which the imported goods are capable of being purchased, and rejecting the contention of the importer that the value paid by MMTC to the original exporter should have been charged to duty from them. On hearing both sides we find that although the appellants have stated clearly in their letter dt. 20.6.91 that they have forwarded all documents such as copy of invoice, bill of entry to the Assistant Collector, the Assistant Collector has not dealt with the material placed on record before him, and t...

Shreeram Engineering Works, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applicants are absent and unrepresented despite notice. There is no evidence of compliance with the terms of the Tribunal's stay order passed on 11.5.2001 and communicated in June 2001....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sukhjit Singh, Rajesh B. Parikh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the Commissioner shows as respondent Sukhjit Singh, Rajesh B. Parikh and Suresh Mehta. There appeals were therefore required to be filed. We have therefore treated this as an appeal against the order relating to Sukhjit Singh, whose name first figures in the list of respondents, informed the departmental representative appropriately. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner found that Sukhjit Singh was liable to penalty for the reason that he, along with others, transported contraband gold valued at Rs. 1.35 crores approximately, from Ahmedabad to Bombay by road. He has however said that Sukhjit Singh was to receive only Rs. 5,000/- for the transport, and therefore imposed a penalty on him of Rs. 20,000/-.3. The ground in the appeal is that this penalty is incommensurate with the gravity of the offence, and does not take into account the fact, admitted by Sukhjit Singh, that he had earlier sim...

Gujarat Chlorides Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant has submitted a copy of the order determining the duty payable by it under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Prayer has been made for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the matter has been settled under that Scheme....

Sucro Filters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case show cause notice was issued to the appellants for dismissal on the ground of non rectification of defect namely not filing legible copies of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellants have now filed the clear copies of Order-in-Appeal and order-Original, we discharge the show cause notice. We proceed to take up the appeal for disposal. Since the issue has dispute stands settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khalsa Pulp & Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE. In this case the Tribunal had held that in respect of Notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 1.3.86 that even if specified goods falling under one of the headings manufactured by the manufacturer exceeds Rs.15 lakhs, and the value of the first clearances of all other excisable specified goods not having exceeded Rs.30 lakhs, the other goods would continue to enjoy exemption till the aggregate ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs exemption for first clearances is reached. The revenue was agreed by the decision o...

Smzs Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(100)LC422Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The duty of Rs. 4800/- has been deposited. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 24000/-.2. The dispute relates to classification of choline chloride. The applicant claims its classification as a animal feed suppliment under heading 23.02 of the Tariff, whereas the impugned order confirms its classification under 29.23 as organic compound.3. Apart from the fact that it would be ordinarily inappropriate to impose penalty in a matter relating to classification, the classification of the product under heading claimed by the applicant appears to have been accepted by the larger bench decision in Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd. v. CCE...

Hercules Hoists Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT199Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported goods described as "chain pulley blocks 1 ton x 2.5 ton lift" and paid duty at the rate applicable to heading 8483.50 of the tariff. It subsequently filed claim for refund that the goods sought to be correctly classifiable under heading 8425.14 with the benefit of partial exemption of free of duty contained in notification 59/87. The Assistant Collector dismissed the claim for refund. This dismissal having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), this matter is before us.2. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim for refund on the ground that the appellant is not established that the goods in question include a chain, which are classifiable under heading 84.25. He said that the goods were therefore pulley blocks without the chain, which were correctly classifiable under heading 8453. This reasoning has been approved by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the description in the invoice of the goods as c...

Stanlubes and Specialties (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants manufacture lubricants for themselves and also on job work basis for M/s. Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. (Hereinafter called as TWOCL). The subject agreement was dt. 1.8.94. A copy of this agreement as supplied to the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector and was acknowledged by office on 26.8.94. Price declarations were filed from time to time showing computation of the duty on cost+basic certified by the Chartered Accountant. A number of show cause notices were issued during the period October 1997 to April 1999; on the allegation that in making cost construction statement the element of duty on inputs had not been taken into account. These proceedings were dropped by the Dy.Commissioner following the law laid down in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. 2. In June 1997 the valuation of the products manufactured for TWOCL was scrutinized. The statements of the employees of the present applicants were recorded. Show cause notice was ...

Padmashri Dr. V.V. Patil Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed before him against the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the applicant did not deposit Rs. 8 lakhs (out of the duty of Rs. 10.72 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh).3. After concluding his arguments on the stay application, counsel for the applicant offers to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs on the facts before us, this appears to be reasonable.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.On the applicant depositing before the Commissioner (Appeals) a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within two months from today, the Commissioner shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. In the event that the deposit is not made within this period, the appeal before us shall stand dismissed....