Mumbai Court November 2002 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Manish Engineering Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT670Tri(Mum.)bai

1. No one is present for the respondent. Shri M.H. Shaikh, learned J.D.R. is present on behalf of the Revenue. He has submitted that the credit has been availed on invalid documents, which is not admissible.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly stated in his order that the appellant has rectified the deficiency pointed out in the Show Cause Notice.The deficiencies are such which are of procedural nature and on rectification the documents become valid for availing the credit. The deficiencies pointed out are such which will not have any adverse effect on the duty paying character of the goods. On rectification, the invoices as is evident from the copies enclosed to the appeal, have all been defaced by the proper officer.2. After hearing the learned J.D.R. and perusal of the records, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed....

Yerwada Investments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT676Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to importation of goods described as glass bricks. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Deputy Commissioner in the order impugned before him that the importation of the goods was unauthorised and therefore they were liable to confiscation.2. The goods in question arrived on 27-2-1996; the bill of entry for their clearances filed on 4th March of that year. The contention of the importer was that in terms of the "ITC (HS) Classificatioh of Export and Import Items", the goods did not require any licence for their importation. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this claim on the ground that this book came into effect only on 26th March, 1986, and was not in force when the goods were imported.3. The contention of the representative of the appellant is that the policy contained in this publication ought to have come into force in October, 1995 and that the delay i...

Gujarat Microwax Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT467Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri K.M. Makawana, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that the goods in question were initially exported, then re-imported and used in the manufacture. As such he claims that the Modvat credit of input duty should be allowed. He further states that as per deficiency memo dtd. 18-04-1996, no drawback was allowed to them on the ground of time bar. In any case the question of drawback was not raised in the Show Cause Notice and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeal) has misdirected himself in linking the issue of Modvat credit with drawback. He also cites C.E.G.A.T decision in the case of Alcobex Metals Ltd. v. Collector -1993 (68) E.L.T. 146 in which the Tribunal held that Modvat credit was available on defective goods remelted and used as inputs in manufacture of final products and that such defective goods used as inputs cannot be considered as final product.2. Shri A. Shukla, learned J.D.R. supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeal). However, he is not abl...

Pfizer Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(106)LC670Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of the substance that the appellant manufacturers. This consists of a solution 66% of sugar and water to which added quantities of sodium citrate, sodium saccharin and sodium benzoate. This syrup is used by the appellant in the manufacture of cough syrup. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held, overruling the Additional Commissioner that the product is marketable and liable to duty.2. In coming to his conclusion that the substance was not liable to duty, the Additional Commissioner had relied upon an order of the Tribunal relating to the same product made by the same manufacturer. In its order in appeal E/2236/97, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant that the presence of sodium saccharin in the substance attracted the provisions of Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which prohibited the sale of any food articles (other than those specifie...

indofil Chemical Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT443Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri. H.C. Daruwalla, the learned advocate for the appellants stated that the appellants manufacture pesticides and for the purpose of packing the same receive aluminium container under Chapter X procedure at their factory at Thane. Due to inadequate capacity at their Thane unit, the appellants sent insecticides and aluminium containers to their Pune unit for packing the same and clearing from the Pune unit directly. As the Pune unit did not have L6 licence required under Chapter X procedure, the excise authorities directed the appellants to pay Rs. 3,11,181.26 towards excise duty on aluminium containers sent to the Pune unit which is stated to have been paid under protest on 17-1-1992. A refund claim was filed by the appellants on 14-7-1992. The appellants claim that they have co-related the receipt and use of aluminium containers in the Pune unit and they should have been granted the refund even though they had not followed the Chapter X procedure and not obtained L6 licence for ...

Softsule Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT238Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of vitamins either single or in combination in capsule packed for retail consumption. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held these goods to be classified in heading 21.08 as food supplement, not accepting the claim of the appellant for classification in heading 30.03 as medicaments.2. In its decision in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal disposing of an appeal E/2401/01 has held that such goods cannot be classified as food supplements in heading 21.08. It is not necessary for us to consider whether the goods are rightly classifiable in Chapter 30.Since the classification that the department has found not being acceptable, the classification that the appellant claimed must apply....

Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chem. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT163Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard Shri B.C. Bhavnani, Manager in the appellant's company and Shri Ishwar Singh, learned JDR for Revenue. The appellants imported EL Analytical Balance on 22-4-1995. They had applied for duty exemption certificate from the Ministry of Science and Technology on 5-4-1995 but obtained a certificate only on 5-5-1995. Their claim for the refund claiming exemption under Notification No. 152/94 dtd. 13-7-1994 based on the duty exemption certificate has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the certificate is dubious and that the application has been made after importation. Shri Bhavnani states that the application was made before importation and on the basis of the same certificate another importation has been allowed under Bill of Entry No. 9104 dtd. 18-8-1995 and hence the certificate cannot be termed as dubious. He also cites the following case laws in his support :- (1) Shyam Oil Cake (P) Ltd. v C.C.E., Jaipur - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 423 (T) = 1997 (20) RLT 5...

Jainsons Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT276Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of hipogen AC 1000. The substance which is stated by the appellant to consist of peroxide compounds, special non-ionic surfactant and alkali builder was classified by the importer on its importation in Heading 3405.90 of the Customs Tariff. The department did not accept this classification and instead, after import of the goods, issued written notice. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), classified the product in heading 3402.90.Hence this appeal. "34.05 Polishes and creams, for footwear, furniture, floors, coachwork, glass or metal, scouring pastes and powders and similar preparations (whether or not in the form of paper, wadding, felt, non-wovens, cellular plastics or cellular rubber, impregnated, coated or covered with such preparations), excluding waxes of heading No. 34.04." 3. Thrust of the appellant's argument is that the product is a scouring powder class...

Shree Chaitanya Plastics, 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 classification of pouches and key cases of polyvinyl chloride manufactured by the appellant. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Additional Commissioner, that these goods are classifiable as travel goods in heading 4201.90 of the tariff.2. The Additional Commissioner's order is no ground for accepting the classification claimed by the manufacturer in heading 3926.90 of the tariff for other articles of plastic not elsewhere specified. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Explanatory Notes to heading 42.02 for his conclusion that the goods are classifiable in heading 42.01 of the tariff.3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite note. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.4. In terms of the words of heading 42.02 key cases and pouches of plastic would doubtless the classifiable in heading 42.02.5. The Commissio...

Set India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT190Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods that the appellant imported. These goods, described as satellite receivers, were classified by the appellant on import in Heading 8525.20 of the Customs Tariff and the benefit of exemption contained in Notification 49/2000, subject to fulfilment of specified export obligation, was also claimed and granted. Subsequently, the licence under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme, which was issued to the appellant, was cancelled by the Director General of Foreign Trade and it therefore was required to pay duty on these goods which had been forgone on their importation. The Custom House therefore issued notice in respect of seven bills of entry under which the goods have been imported, based on the rate of duty applicable to goods of Heading 85.28. In reply to this, the appellant contended that the goods ought rightly be classifiable in Heading 8525.20. The Deputy Commissioner, whose order has been confi...