Mumbai Court May 2002 Judgments
Goldline Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC469Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Goldline Industries availed modvat credit of Rs. 88,618/- on the basis of endorsed invoices for the period 1.4.1994 to 11.7.1994.The department was of the view that endorsed invoices were not valid duty paying documents for the purpose of taking credit and hence show cause-cum-demand notice was issued on 12.1.1995 proposing recovery of the above mentioned amount of credit and proposing imposition of penalty. The assesses replied to the notice stating that credit had been correctly availed since the invoices were issued by dealers who enclosed copies of manufacturer's invoices showing that inputs are duty paid. They also stated that the dealers who were not registered during the material period subsequently got registered. The notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand and he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- upon the assesses. The Commissioner (Appeals), while upholding the recovery of credit, set aside the penalty. The assessee has com...
Tag this Judgment!Karmayogi Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC130Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these appeals except, one by Kamal Dye and Plastic Works are by Karmayogi Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. This appellant is a processor of fabrics.The notices issued to it alleged short payment of duty on the fabrics processed by it on job work. The basis for the allegation was that the value of the grey fabric which it processed, which formed a component in the assessable value of the processed fabric, had been underdeclared. This allegation was supported by statement of various persons who handed over the grey fabrics to the appellant for processing, accepting that the prices that they declared to the processor were lower than the actual prices than they paid for the fabrics. In reply to the show cause notice, the processor did not dispute that the value of fabrics was underdeclared but contended that it was not liable to pay duty and that liability fell upon the supplier of the grey fabric.2. The adjudicating authority accepted this argument to some extent. He said that the "merchant manuf...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC429
1. The question for consideration in this appeal, the value for assessment of the biscuits manufactured by Shah Foods Ltd., the appellant, out of raw materials provided by Lipton India Ltd. and returned to that company, has already been decided by this Tribunal in its decision in Shah Foods Ltd. v. CCE . It was held that the correct assessable value would be not the price at which Lipton India Ltd. sold the biscuits, but the cost of manufacture incurred by Shah Foods Ltd. 2. Applying the ratio of that decision, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief....
Tag this Judgment!Geekay Industries Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(106)LC531Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the benefit of exemption contained in notification 120/78 of goods that the appellant imported. The exemption was sought to be denied by the department on the ground that the condition contained in the first proviso to the notification had not been complied with. This proviso reads thus: "Provided that the importer produces a certificate from the authority issuing the import replenishment licence or an endorsement by the said authority on the said licence specifying the quantity and value of nylon filament yarn or polyester filament yarn or both, as the case may be, allowed to be imported under the said licence against exports of the aforesaid products." The department's objection was based on the fact that of the six import licences that were produced by the importer on clearance of the goods, four did not even specify the item-nylon filament yarn or polyester filament yarn, which could be imported. The licences p...
Tag this Judgment!Packam and Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC750Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants took over a portion of the factory belonging to one M/s. Extrusion Processes Ltd. in the year 1979 and were carrying on the activity of converting one type of duty paid metal container into another type of container. They were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 11.2.1991 demanding duty on the aluminium bottle, waste and scrap of aluminium and condensors cleared from the factory between 1.3.1986 to 29.2.1988 amounting to Rs. 13,02,580.63. The show cause notice alleged that the Appellants had manufactured these goods without payment of duty and without cover of a valid document, did not account excisable goods in statutory records nor filed returns or classification list and price list and that they suppressed the fact that they had manufactured excisable goods with intend to evade payment of duty. (a) The demand is barred by limitation as the Department was well aware of the facts. (b) The processes which they were doing on the duty paid containers does not amount to ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Impex Clearing and Shipping
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Ld. Counsel for the respondents herein raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, who has dropped proceedings initiated against the Customs House Agents in terms of Regulation 23 of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984. It is his contention that the law does not provide for any appeal by the Revenue against such order and the right to file appeal against an order passed either under Regulation 21 or sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 23 lies only with the CHA, as seen from the clear language of Regulation 23 Sub-clause 8.2. The ld. D.R. contends that any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner (Appeals) can prefer an appeal and the right of appeal is not restricted only to the CHA.3. On hearing both sides and perusing the CHA Licensing Regulations framed under Section 146 of the Customs Act, I agree with the respondents that the right to prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Diamant Boart Petroleum India Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Sec. 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to comply with the direction of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 19,62,434/- vide Order No. C/II/299/WZB/2001, dated 19-4-2001. It is contended before us by the Id. Counsel, Shri Sreedharan that the goods in question on which duty demand was confirmed viz. capital goods are under the control of the Customs Authorities. Since the goods in question continue to remain in the Customs Warehouse even though the warehousing period has expired, the provisions of Sec. 129E are not attracted as the section applies only in respect of duty on goods which are not under the control of Customs Department. He, therefore, prays that the order of dismissal for non-compliance may be set aside and the appeals restored to their original numbers.2. The prayer is opposed by the ld. D.R., Shri Sarkar who submits that the applicants ought to have applied for modification of the sta...
Tag this Judgment!Rmk Special Cables Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC482Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in dispute relates to classification of Thermocouple Extension wire/compensating Cable manufactured by the appellants herein--whether under Chapter sub-heading 9033.00 as claimed by the assessee or Chapter sub-heading 8544.00 as held by the Revenue. The duty demand of Rs. 27,43,385/- arises as a result of confirmation of the classification under CETA sub-heading 8544.00 which attracted duty @ 35% as opposed to rate of duty @ 15% for goods falling under CETA sub-heading 9033.00.2. We have heard Shri Atul Setalwad, learned senior counsel appearing along with Shri Sorabjee, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Bodade, learned DR for the Revenue and find that the issue is no longer res integra as it has been settled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Fykys Engineering Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been held that Thermocouple/Compensating cables are classifiable under CETA subheading 9025.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. Since the rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!D.H. Patil and Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT361Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for early hearing of the above appeal against the order of suspension of CHA licence is allowed in view of the fact that the appellant's business has come to a standstill as a result of the suspension order....
Tag this Judgment!Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC761Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessees herein who are engaged in the manufacture of steel structurals also undertake the activity of reshelling of used and worn out sugar mill rollers sent for reshelling by customers. The department was of the view that the activity of reshelling of sugar mill rollers was an excisable activity of manufacture of goods and, therefore, the appellants filed classification list and specifically mentioned therein that duty on reshelling rollers would be paid by them under protest in accordance with the letter dated 14.3.1975. This payment continued till 1980 when the appellants lodged claims for refund of duty paid. The details of refund claims are as under:Refund amount Period Date of appln.Rs. 6,86,478.96 1.3.1975 to 31.3.1979 12.06.1980Rs. 4,99,028.26 1.4.1979 to 31.12.1979 12.06.1980Rs. 2,70,081.30 1.1.1980 to 30.6.1980 11.12.1980 2. The jurisdictional Asstt. Collector of Cen. Excise rejected the refund claims by order dated 11.8.1981 on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »