Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Vinaybhai R. Patel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On 10.01.1996 the business premises of a photograph equipment dealer, the respondent, was searched and video cassettes and photograph film rolls of foreign origin were seized. The respondent's proprietor could not produce documents evidencing procurement of these goods immediately on the date of seizure. The goods were seized as smuggled and therefore liable for confiscation. The respondents produced invoices covering the purchase of the subject goods on 23.01.1996. The sellers of the goods as per the invoices produced were questioned they admitted to have sold the same number of foreign origin video cassettes on 09.01.1996 and photograph film rolls on 10.01.1996. These explanations were not accepted as the goods were under Restricted List of Imports as per EXIM policy and the respondent proprietor had admitted on 10.01.1996 that he had no documents. The goods were confiscated and penalties were imposed by the original authority. i) Invoices for acquisition produced, unless proved ...

industrial Minerals and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC152Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the copper sulphate that the appellant manufactures and clears. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Asst. Commissioner that the product is classifiable in heading 2833.00 of the tariff as an inorganic chemical not as claimed by the appellant as an insecticide in heading 3808.10.2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Saraf, the partner of the appellant and the departmental representative.3. Heading 3808.10 covers goods which are generically pesticides specifying the various categories such as insecticide rondenticide, fungicides etc. "put up in forms or packing for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles and fly papers." This heading and heading 2833 are both reproduction of heading in the Harmonised System of Nomenclature.Explanatory notes to 3808 explains that the products are to be classified in heading 38.08...

Parikshit Plastic Products Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC154Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appeal is directed against the demand of duty in respect of credit of duty paid on "un printed plastic bottles with cap" (blank bottles), which have been used in the appellant's factory for manufacture of "printed plastic bottles." It is alleged that, the process of printing cannot be considered as amounting to manufacture.The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 71,184.50/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order hence the instant appeals before the Tribunal.3. The appellants have placed reliance on the CEGAT judgment in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi-III In the said judgment, it has been held that, the inputs subjected to processing have to be cleared on discharging the duty on the basis of the intrinsic value of the goods (at the time of clearance) as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Siddhant Tubes Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2000 (88) ECR 762 (SC) : 2000 (15) ELT-32 ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. J.T. Parekh and Co. and Shri Dilip

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT77Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the orders of Customs (Appeals) who set aside the confiscation of certain consumer goods of foreign origin seized from the shop premises of the appellants after concluding that the goods are neither notified under Chapter 11-A of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 123 thereof the onus on the department to prove the smuggled nature has not been discharged. The grounds taken by Revenue are - (i) Rely upon Tribunal's decision in the case reported in 1991 (52) ELT 251, 1983 (12) ELT 849, 1986 (25) ELT 1001, 1992 (61) ELT 676. (ii) The inability to produce any document for the goods and admission that goods are of foreign origin.2. After hearing the DR and considering the fats on record, it is found - a) Goods under seizure on 22.01.1998 in the shop premises were 28 cameras, 2 calculators, 3 video game cassettes, 1 walkman, 3 wristwatches, 7 deodorants, 5 spray bottles, 2 hair dryers, and a packet containing US dollars 2077 and British Pound 1660. b) Co...

Surya Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

i) Manufacturers invoice was not at all available to prove that dealer, on whose invoice the credit was availed, had purchased the goods from a manufacturer. ii) Credit on the invoices of M/s. J.K. Enterprises the agent of M/s. IPCL was not eligible since they were authorized distributors who had not received the goods on commercial basis of M/s. IPCL but had received the same on stock transfer basis.2. When the appeal was called, none appeared for the appellants, the DR was heard. On considering the material on record it is found :- a) The invoices of M/s. J.K. Enterprises mention the rate amount of duty paid by M/s. IPCL and when admittedly the goods were stock transferred to them, the co-relation could have been made. M/s. J.K. Enterprises is an agent of the manufacturer and not an independent dealer in his own right. They have been registered under Central Excise Rules. Therefore, invoices issued by them, be invoices on behalf of the principal i.e. M/s. IPCL when they bear cross r...

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT316Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) 13.7.98. The issue relates to the claim of the appellant for concessional duty under Notification No. 8/95-CE dated 9.2.95 in respect of the product manufactured by it.2. The appellant is manufacturing pharmaceutical product by the name of Bistrepen Forte Injections (a combination of two bulk drugs i.e.Streptomycin and Penicillin). They filed a classification list w.e.f.22.4.95 claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 8/95.Pending finalization of provisional assessment made under order dated 30.8.95, two show cause notices dated 26.10.95 and 26.2.96 were issued demanding differential duty. It was alleged that the concessional duty under Notification No. 8/95 was not available to the appellant's product since the combination of streptomycin and penicillin (Bistrepen) was not specified in the second schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellant ...

Parag Sheth Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay, stay recovery thereof and restrain the Department from enchasing the balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh executed at the time of release of goods provisionally arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad dated 18.07.2002.2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant imported a consignment of I.C.s, and Transistors and sought clearance under Bill of Entry No.6838/98 dated 29.10.98. The subject goods were detained on the allegation that they were grossly under valued. They were later on released provisionally on payment of differential duty of Rs. 8 lakhs and on execution of Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and on execution of a Bond for Rs. 24,60,956/-. Further enquires conducted by the Department revealed that the applicant imported several consignments of electronic components from various ports on different dates grossly undervaluing them. On the basis of these enquires a show cause noti...

Vishnubhai P. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC356

1. There is a delay of 16 months in filing this appeal. Applicant is absent and has requested decision on the submission and affidavit filed.2. Penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed on the applicant who has been described as "authorised person" of HP Chain, Ahmedabad. The explanation offered in the application for the delay is that there could not have been any reason for not filing the appeal in time. The applicant was under the belief that it was the proprietor of HP Chain who will file the appeal and not him. It is not possible to accept this contention. The Commissioner in his order does not describe the applicant as the proprietor of HP Chain but as the authorised person.The order imposing penalty on him does not describe any as the proprietor and imposed penalty by him. No grounds have indicated as to the basis on which in this situation, the applicant concluded that he was not required to file the appeal.3. A different version is presented in the affidavit affirmed on 25-8-2...

Pharmapack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue raised in the instant appeal relates to the availability of Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on "Ceramic Filters" fitted in the machinery, used for manufacture of "ABDEC drops," a pharmaceutical preparation. The said filter is utilised at the end of manufacturing process of the said product to remove the micro-organisms and to make the product sterile. The lower authorities held that this end process of filtration is not a manufacturing process. The drops are already fully manufactured, before these are subjected to the process of filtration. The appellants claim that, the filter is an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The negative list contained in explanation to Rule 57A(1) covers, tools, apparatus, etc., for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or any relation to the manufacture of final product (underlining mine). The filter obviously, cannot be considered to be one of the items ...

Goodwill Electronics and Arihant Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1086Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All three appeals involved common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are that, on the basis of intelligence collected by the Directorate of Revenue intelligence that certain Delhi based importers including M/s. Goodwill Electronics have imported Ferrite Magnets by misdeclaring the net weight to evade anti-dumping duty leviable from 4.5.99 on hard ferrite ring magnets originating in or exported from China peoples republic at the rate equal to the difference between Rs. 36/- per Kg. and the landed value of the imported goods per kg., in terms of Notification No. 103/99-Cus. dt.6.8.99, show cause notice dt. 31.7.2000 was issued to M/s. Goodwill Electronics alleging that they had imported one consignment of Hard Ferrite Ring Magnets falling under Customs Tariff Heading 8505.19 under Bill of Entry dt. 13.3.2000 by misdeclaring the weight. (The examination of the goods showed that the quantity declared in the invoice and bill...