Mumbai Court November 2002 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Fosroc Chem (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1129Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal at the instance of the revenue the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-6-97.The issue relates to valuation of imports made by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the invoice price of the importer cannot be rejected. Aggrieved by the above, the Revenue has come up in an appeal.2. The respondent had imported 1.7465 MT of Polysulphide Polymer Grade LP 33 from M/s. Morton International Limited, United Kingdom and filed Bill of Entry No. 4245, dated 12-3-96. The price of the goods was : Referring to import of other parties from the very same supplier the adjudicating authority sought to reject the transaction value claimed by the respondent herein. The importer contended that the price offered to it is based on the global take off by Forsoc Group of Companies spread over different countries. Forsoc Group being one of the largest customer of Morton International, the price advantage was given to it.It was u...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Solitaire Machine Tools P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT384Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the same order in appeal i.e. GS/102/BRD/97 dated 17-7-97 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai. Accordingly, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of under this order.2. The dispute is regarding the duty liability of a 100% EOU upon debond by in terms of Notification No. 13/Cus., dated 6-2-81 as amended.3. Brief facts of the case are that in 1987 the appellant M/s.Solitaire Machines Tools Pvt. Limited obtained permission to set up an EOU for the manufacture of Cincinati-20M Centreless Grinder. The project involved importation of capital goods worth over 6.4 lakhs US$.After being in manufacture till 1996, the appellants sought permission to debond from the 100% EOU scheme. On debonding, the appellant became liable to pay duty of customs and excise in respect of imported capital goods, raw materials in stock etc. The disputes that arose with regard to the quantum of duty so payable is the subject matter...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. A.K. Patel and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT157Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue, the only issue to be considered is whether the broken and damaged concrete poles arising in the manufacture of PSC poles by the respondent is leviable to duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view that the damaged poles are non-excisable as waste and scrap and no duty would be leviable.According to the Revenue, the broken and damaged poles should come under Heading 68.07 which covers "all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials not elsewhere specified or included".2. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the revenue.The broken poles cannot be described as articles. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal....

Sunshine Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT978Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for stay of the operation of the impugned order, it appeared that on a point of law well established, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done.2. The appellants are a CHA firm. They had processed two shipping bills for export of garments under claim of Drawback, Snipping Bills dated 29-5-2001. Show cause notice was issued on 27-11-2001 alleging that the exporters had over valued inferior quality garments for obtaining undue benefit in drawback. The charge in the show cause notices was that the CHA firm had aided and abetted this attempt. The charge was specifically made against one partner of the firm. The Commissioner has not yet passed the order in adjudication. However, on 29-10-2002 the impugned order was passed suspending the licence of the CHA firm in terms of Regulations 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984.Against this order the present appeal has been filed.3. The power used by the ...

Polymech Plast Machines Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has found that each of these persons paid duty on the plastic injection moulding machines that they manufactured and cleared by under declaring the capacity and dimensions and by not including in the value of goods the cost of free parts supplied along with the goods, confirmed the demand for duty issued to them and imposed penalties.2. The contention of the common counsel for the appellants with regard to Polymech Plast Machines Ltd. is this. In the course of the proceedings before the Commissioner, the appellant had asked for, and had been granted, permission to cross examine its managing director, personnel manager and accounts manager, whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notice. Cross examination of these persons concluded on 20.3.1996. In the submission filed on 29.3.1996, the appellant had requested for a personal hearing. The Commissioner has passed this order without according an opportunity. He...

Vinayak Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT456Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of crankcase and flywheel which are parts of diesel oil engines. In addition, the appellant also receives flywheel for the purpose of carrying out certain finishing processes.These appeals filed by the appellant as well as the revenue relate to duty demand in respect of the flywheel which are received by the appellant for carrying out further processes.2. The Revenue's contention is that the flywheels received by the appellant are finished goods, the processes carried out on them do not amount to manufacture of new goods entitling the appellants to credit of duty paid on flywheels received from outside. As against this, the appellant contends that the flywheels received by them are in semi finished condition and very important processes are required to be carried out by them before they are fit for use. Accordingly, while defending the eligibility for taking Modvat credit as input on the flywheels received by them, the appellants admit that they woul...

J.A. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for dispensing with the condition for pre-deposit. The issue raised in these appeals is regarding classification of copper pipe fitting manufactured by the appellant.According to the appellant it is classifiable under sub-heading 7412.20. The Revenue would contend that they are to be classifiable under sub-heading 8415.00 as parts of air-conditioner.2. After hearing the learned Counsel as well as the learned DR we find that the appellant has made out a case in its favour both on merits as well as on the issue of limitation. We, therefore, waive the condition of pre-deposit....

Himson Textile Engg. Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT910Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 11-11-96. The appellant submits that there is no justification for denying him the benefit of notification No. 36/96.2. Notification No. 36/96 dated 23-7-96 grants exemption from duty in respect of certain goods. Item 146 is as follows :- The machinery/equipmentspecified in List 6, required for textile industry" 3. It is not disputed that machinery which is imported by the appellant is included in the list. If that be so, there is no reason to deny the benefit of exemption under Notification 36/96 to the appellant. Whether the appellant is the actual user or not is irrelevant in this context.Apart from the above, on going through the order impugned it is seen that the Commissioner had dropped the charge against the appellant on the ground that he was not an 'actual user'.4. We, therefore, hold that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 36/96. The impugned ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krystal Polyfab Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT292Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 14-10-97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue raised is whether Draw Twisted Yarn is leviable to duty before 16-3-95.2. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that for the first time Draw Twisted yarn came to be specifically covered under Chapter Heading 5302.49 in 1995. The Commissioner took the view that Chapter Note 3 introduced by 1995-96 Budget also specifically stipulated that the process of twisting amounted to manufacture. Notification 36/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 stipulates specifically the tariff value for Polyester Filament Yarn textured or twisted. Prior to 16-3-95 the tariff value was fixed only for textured and non-textured polyester filament yarn.On the above view the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the Assistant Commissioner and held that such yarn was not leviable to duty prior to 16-3-95.3. Admittedly the respondent herein gets duty paid yarn and carries out only the process of twisting. The above activity...

Vishnu Deuskar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR866

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The applicant who is accused No. 4 is enlarged on bail in Special Case No. 1 of 1998 has applied for permission to go abroad viz. London for 9 days between 16-11-2002 and 24-11-2002. The applicant has annexed a letter dated 25-10-2002 received from Mr. Kim, Managing Director and Global Head of Government Bond Trading, ABN AMRO Bank inviting the applicant for training course in Primary Dealing activities and also to meet Senior Officials of ABN AMRO Bank, London.2. The applicant has stated that he was permitted to travel abroad on a number of occasions in the past and has referred to the various orders in paragraph No. 5 of the present application. The applicant has stated that on each occasion, he has returned back and there is no apprehension of he being not available for trial. In the event, he is allowed to travel abroad.3. The learned Spl. P.P. for the C.B.I. states that the permission may be granted on the same...