Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Mahendra K. Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC235Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant seeks retention of the appeal in Mumbai as he resides in Mumbai. The appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. Since the applicant resides in Mumbai, we allow this appeal to be retained here.2. Arguing the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the applicant herein, the ld. counsel Shri R.J. Parakh submits that he was a bonafide purchaser of Vitamin C imported by somebody else and the mere fact that the goods in question were packed in packages that bore the description 'PVC resin' is not sufficient to hold that he was in any way involved in the smuggling or that he had any knowledge that the goods had been illegally imported. He further submits that the finding that the goods were sold by him under an invoice in the name of a non existing firm by mis-declaring Vitamin C as Paracetamol, is also sufficient for attributing knowledge on his part that the Vitamin C purchased by ...

Glaxo India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 33,26,515/- and equal amount of penalty and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants herein obtained Value Based Advance Licence dated 11.3.1994 for the import of raw materials required for the manufacturer of export products. They imported materials under different Bills of Entry and claimed exemption under Notification No. 203/92 Cus dated 19.5.1992 from payment of Customs duty and additional duty. It appeared to the Department that the Condition No. (v) (a) of the Notification which prohibits availment of the modvat credit on inputs had been violated by the appellants and hence show cause notice was issued to them. In their reply they pleaded that their supporting manufacturer Apte Amalgations Ltd. had already reversed the credit obtained by them under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules in terms of the Amnesty Scheme announce...

Ahmed Leather Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The order of the Commissioner adjudicates upon a common notice issued to the appellant before us and Bathija Zip House and Foremost India Export. From this order it appears that Bathija Zip House imported the goods in pursuance of advance licences which were issued to Ahmed Leather Exports and Foremost India Export, and transferred by them to it. The importer claimed and was granted benefit of notification 203/92. The notice alleges that the exemption was not available for the reason that modvat credit had been availed in the manufacture of the export goods. In his order, the Commissioner records that Bathija Zip House, which he describes elsewhere in his order as the importer, in its reply to the notice had stated that it had imported the goods. The appellant before us did not reply to the notice. The Commissioner has held that duty is payable by Ahmed Leather Exports, the appellant before us.3. If the import were not make by this appellant, the question of payment of duty by it w...

Vasparr Fischer Ltd., Babubhai D. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit.2. The primary question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of the spade and gamela manufactured by Vasparr Fischer Ltd.. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has declined to accept the correct classification claimed of them as agricultural implements under heading 84.32 of the Excise tariff. He has held the spade to be classifiable as a hand tool under heading 82.01 and as an article of iron and steel under heading 73.26.3. The contention of the representative of this appellant is that the orders that were received for these goods described them as agricultural implements. The index published to the Central Excise Tariff of India by Centax Publication Pvt. Ltd. also supports the contention that the goods were agricultural implements. The orders on enquiry were found to be oral. It is evident that this defence clearly is a contrived one. Nobody in their right mind would...

Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant manufactured aerated waters. The value of these goods for assessment was, by application of Section 4A of the Act, derived from the maximum retail sale price of the goods. The appellant's goods bore different maximum retail prices on different packages which were meant for sale in different areas, having regard to the sales tax and other local levies. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that in determining the value, the highest of these prices to be taken.3. The order of the Commissioner is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case in appeal E/2556/2000. The larger bench has held that the assessable value is to be determined on the basis of the retail price printed on the commodity or its contention; it is only in cases where there is only more than one maximum retial price printed that the higher or highest of the price is to be taken. The appropriate course for the departm...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ram Niranjan Kedia Tourism

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the appellant's own case (appeal C/532 to 552/2000). The ground in the appeal that this order is "being appealed against" clearly indicates that no appeal has yet been filed. This is what the counsel for the respondent also says.In these circumstances, we do not find any ground for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)....

Pujara Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of one Solna 225, 2 colour offset printing machine and one 45 inch guillotine. Both were declared to be second hand. Examination of the consignment revealed the presence in addition of these two machines of one more second hand Solna two colour off set machine. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing among other things, to enhance the value of these machines. The order of the Additional Collector of Customs passed in adjudication resulted in such enhancement. On appeal from this order, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the importer that valuation of second hand machinery ought not to be based on other second hand machinery unless it was shown that it was identical in characteristic and use. The order read as follows: "In view of teh assessable value of imported goods comprising of two second hand "Solna 225- Two Colour offset printing machine" one old "guillotine 45 inch" Polar 115 Electromat" machine was d...

Stanlek Engineering P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 31,348.30 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding that the applicant could not avail modvat credit while paying duty on goods which bore the brand name of another person and at the same time seek exemption from duty on goods manufactured on its own account.2. Prima facie the case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Solid Foods 2001 (127) ELT 159 on the same issue. Therefore we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery....

Godhra Re-rolling Mill Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above 3 appeals filed by the same assessee viz. M/s. Godhra Re-Rolling Mills involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order, after waiving requirement of pre-deposit since the issue in dispute stands settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sawan Mal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh. I [2001(42) RLT 75 (CEGAT-L.B)].2. The appellants are manufacturers of hot re-rolled products of non alloy steel by operating a hot steel re-rolling mill. They are liable to pay duty at compounded rates in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the duty is determined depending on the Annual Capacity of Production, or such factors relevant to the annual capacity of production of the factory in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Ac...

German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After considering the application for stay of operation of the impugned order, we have, with consent of both sides, decided to take the appeal for disposal.2. German Remedies Ltd., the appellant before us, deposited, in response to what is stated to be "persuasion" by the Directorate of Anti-Evasion Department, a sum of Rs. 1.04 crores approximately on 13.8.1999. The factor that influenced the Directorate of Anti-Evasion to "persuade" the appellant to deposit this amount was that it had not paid the duty correctly payable on bulk drugs manufactured in its factory at Patalganga and transferred to its factories at Andheri and Goa for conversion into finished drugs.3. The appellant filed on 3.2.2000 a claim for refund of this amount on the ground that on merit this amount was not payable. The Deputy Commissioner found that the issue relating to valuation of the goods was under adjudication, a show cause notice having been issued, and dismissed the claim on the ground that it was prema...