Mumbai Court November 2002 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M. Vasi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT312Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These five appeals arise out of the single Order of the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay Airport. As the issue and parties are inter connected, these appeals are disposed of vide this single order.2. 5 Mail packages addressed to Sunrise Enterprise, Shop No. 3, Building-1, Amrit Nagar, Jogeshwari (West), Bombay were intercepted on arrival by airmail. The goods were declared as 'Watch Modules'. The invoices for the goods were inside the mail packages. The goods were declared, as samples. The goods were seized in the belief that they were liable to confiscation. Subsequent investigations showed that at the address given M/s. Sunrise Enterprise did not exist. In the premises was a tailoring shop run by one Mr. A.R. Rahman. Two days subsequent to the seizure, one Mr. M.V. Shamsuddin claimed ownership and produced documents for claiming the goods imported. He furnished a Deed of Partnership between himself and one Mr. J.H. Abdulrahman for the firm Sunrise Enterprise and a certificate givi...

Commissioner of Cus. (Ep) Vs. Virendra Kanshiram Gandhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT128Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above applications have been filed by the Revenue for stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai by which he has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 9,74,52,797/- against M/s. Kunal Overseas Limited and its Partner Shri Paresh Parekh, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 crores on both the above mentioned persons and dropped proceedings against the remaining co-noticees, including the respondents in the present applications.2. The background of the case is that M/s. Kunal Overseas Limited purchased on high sea sales basis large quantities of plastic moulding powders like HOPE, LDPE, PVC, etc., from M/s. M.K. Industries, M/s.Anant B. Timbadia & Company, M/s. Par Petro Chem Ltd., Petro Impex. (I) Private Limited and M/s. Bishwanath Industries Limited; and subsequently cleared them free of customs duty against advance licences under DEEC Scheme. The advance licences were granted under actual user condition. Subsequent investigations by DRI revealed that...

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT202Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue that arises in this appeal is the eligibility for Modvat credit of duty paid on 'Chlorine containers'. The Revenue contend that these containers being of durable nature and for repeat use, their value is not includible in the assessable value of final product 'Chlorine' and for that reason Modvat credit is not available in respect of duty paid on these containers. The objection is grounded in explanation to Rule 57A(1)(e)(III). As against this, the appellant's contention is that they sell chlorine both in the containers owned by the appellants themselves and containers supplied by the buyers of chlorine. They point out that in respect of supply in appellant's own containers, the price charged is higher by Rs. 250/- PMT on account of the cost of the containers. It is less by that amount when the buyer supplies his own containers. They also point out that they have been paying duty at the higher value in respect of chlorine sold in containers owned by the appellant. Based o...

Kamanwala Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT126Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 19-12-97. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and M.S. Castings under Chapter Heading 7206.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay sanctioning scheme of Amalgamation, Shree Saibaba Castings Pvt. Ltd. got amalgamated with the appellant company. As per the terms of the scheme all debts, liabilities, duties and obligations of Shree Saibaba Castings Pvt. Ltd. are transferred to the appellant company. It is under these circumstances the adjudicating order against Shree Saibaba Castings Pvt. Ltd. is challenged by the appellant herein.2. The assessee was served with a show cause-cum-demand notice in 1995 alleging that they have produced 44625.554 M.T. of M.S. Ingots during the period 25-7-91 to 30-6-95. The quantity of ingots was assessed on the basis of the average percentage of Manganese in M....

Macrolide Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to exemption contained in Notification 8/96 with regard to roxithromycin that it manufactured and cleared during the period 1-9-1996 to 28-2-1997. In the show cause notice issued to it on 1-10-2001 the duty was alleged to be short paid on the ground that the goods were not bulk drugs which were exempted. The reason advanced in the notice for its conclusion is that the bulk drug in question did not conform to pharmacopoeia or other standards specified in the second schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner has denied the exemption, 2. On merits the appellant has no case for the exemption. This issue had been considered by the Tribunal in its decision in Micro Orgochem and Ors. v. CCE, Surat II (Appeal E/2076/01 and others) [2002 (148) E.L.T. 1043 (Tribunal)]. Although the notification considered in that appeal was 6/94 and 8/95, the definition of the ...

Frigorifico Allana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT163Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal the assessee challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad dated 23-9-97 where assessee was denied the benefit of Exemption Notification Nos.18/91, dated 25-7-91 and 2/94, dated 1-3-94 as amended by Notification No. 14/95, dated 16-3-95 in respect of the Tallow produced by them.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various products including animal fat or tallow. Under Notification No. 18/91, dated 25-7-91 exemption has been granted from Central Excise duty. The appellant was clearing the product claiming the above exemption. While so, show cause notices dated 22-9-94 and 16-1-95 were received by the appellant directing them to show cause why their claim for exemption under the above notification shall not be refused for the reason that tallow which is obtained from buffalo which is the product of the appellant will not be covered by the Exemption Notification Nos. 18/91 and 2/94 relating to 'Mutton Tallow'. A...

K.K. Beverages Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT536Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the stay petition came up for hearing it was agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The issue raised in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2000 dated 1-3-2000. The appellant is manufacturing mineral water under the brand name "Kingfisher" which belongs to M/s. United Breweries Limited. The brand name is used by the appellant as per the terms of an agreement between the appellant and M/s. United Breweries Limited. According to the appellant since the brand name is being used by it as per the permission granted by the owner of the brand name under Franchise Agreement, it is entitled to claim SSI exemption under notification No.8/2000. In support of the above contention the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on several decisions of this Tribunal.3. We are not able to accept the above contention of the appellant. The ratio of ...

Hydranautics Membranes India Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT248Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee, the only issue arising for consideration is whether its product 'hydrapure' is exempted from duty as a water filter under Notification No. 155/86-CE., dated 1-3-86. The original authority after having gone through the demonstration of the unit came to the conclusion that its function is that of water filter and, therefore, is entitled to the exemption. The above finding was negatived by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reason that the apparatus does the function of purifying also.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while filtering through the above apparatus, the water gets purified as the suspended materials as well as bacteria are removed in the process of filteration. The fact that the water gets purified in the process of filteration will not take out the apparatus from the class of water filter. In support of the above, he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Exc...

Ruttonsha Internil Rectifier Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT947Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When this petition for stay came up for hearing it has been agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The contention raised by the appellant is that no notice could be issued beyond the period of six months without referring to any special reason for that and the show cause notice is not liable to be accepted as it is time barred. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed return.If that be so, under Section 73 proceedings can be initiated for a period beyond six months.The only other issue to be considered is how the quantification has to be made. The appellant has produced certain documents before this Tribunal at the time of hearing. We do not propose to go in to the issue of quantification. It is open to the appellant to produce all documents before the original authority who will examine the same and pass order regarding quantification of the tax liability. The appeal stands disposed of as above....

Creative Eye Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the stay applications in the above two appeals came up for hearing, it was found that the appeals themselves could be disposed of and hence the consent of both the sides we have decided to taken up these appeals for disposal.2. The appellant is a producer of T.V. serials. He produced various TV programmes for being broad cast to various TV channels. It is stated that in the instant case the broad caster is Doordarsan. The question involved is when the appellant produced a TV programme i.e. by shooting the various scenes, whether this amounted to production of goods for the purpose of exigibility of duty under Central Excise Act in the proceedings below the appellant has claimed exemption under Notification No. 64/95 on the ground that the video cassette is meant for the broad cast of Doordarsan. In the proceedings below the appellant has raised this plea in reply to the show cause notice. We have seen the impugned order. We are unable to find any finding given by the adjudicat...