Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Pooja Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, who has confirmed the total duty demand of Rs. 43,27,052/- on processed manmade fabrics failing under Chapter 54.06 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 cleared by the applicants herein who are 100% EOU and imposed penalty of equal amount and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Mahendra Harnath Rai Agarwal, Director of M/s. Pooja Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd. Out of the total duty demand, a sum of Rs. 7,04,533/- has been confirmed on 69362 L.Mtrs., of processed manmade fabrics found short at the time of stock taking by applying the full rate of customs duty as per proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Duly demand of Rs. 36,26,396/- has been confirmed on clearances of processed manmade fabrics, rejects and wastes to the DTA by applying Notification 2/95.2. We have heard both sides. The submission of the applicants that on the goods cleared clandestinely, i.e., ...

Ajanta Paper and General Products Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC463Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Additional Commissioner has disallowed modvat credit on phosphor bronze endless long wire (wire mesh) and felt used in the manufacture of paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 on the ground that the two items were appearatus or appliances used for producing or processing or bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of paper and therefore excluded from the coverage of inputs in Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants are not present in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the issue is no longer res Integra as it stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Pubjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers , holding that wire mesh and felt are eligible to mdovat credit under Rule 57A and even if they are treated as parts of machines, credit is admissible under Rule 57Q. Following the ratio of the above judgment on ...

Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT183Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The learned Counsel for the appellants is refuting the allegation made in the show cause notice to the effect that, they have not applied for permission for burning losses of 3%. It is claimed by the appellants that they have actually informed the superintendent of Central Excise, while applying for permission under Rule 57F(2) that, there would be burning loss of 3% while converting the ingots to slugs.The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order refers to this fact of burning loss of 3% being intimated to the Department vide appellant's letter dated 20-7-1993. However Commissioner (Appeals) has decided that in the absence of actual figures of burning losses, the claim of 3% loss is hypothetical. The Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore disallowed the loss. However, it is revealed that the proposal for restricting the losses to the extent of actuals was not raised in the respective show cause notices. The only ground that was raised related to failure to obtain the necessary permission...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Lakhubhai G. Mer

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT745Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Custom officers Porbandar searched the residential premises of the respondent on 04.12.1997 and seized the following items in the belief that they were smuggled. The items are - The respondent stated to have purchased the same from shops at Porbandar. While the notified goods dealer denied having supplied the item, the Sony brand products were admitted to have been procured from the authorised dealer of Sony goods at Ahemedabad and sold to the respondent. The lower authorities confiscated three items i.e. Sony TV, Panasonic VCR and National Air Conditioner and gave a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. a) In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) on ground that goods are not notified goods and the burden falls on the dependent to prove the smuggle on the depot is not destroyed and that bills of purchase were produced the goods were ordered to be released after setting aside the penalty.b) Revenue has come up in this appeal against the order of Commissi...

Cellulose Products of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Monochloro Acetic Acid (MCA) and are availing modvat credit facility on acetic acid, acetic anhydride and liquid chlorine used in the manufacture of the above product cleared by them on payment of duty as well as at nil rate of duty under Notification 43/88-CE. Therefore the bar of Rule 57C providing that no credit on specified duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products is allowed if the final product is exempt from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or it is chargeable to nil rate of duty, was found to be attracted and the two show cause notices dated 12/05/1993 and 26/08/1993 were issued to the appellants proposing to recover credit wrongly taken on inputs used in the manufacture of MCA cleared at nil rate of duty and proposing imposition of penalty.2. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed both the notices, totaling a duty demand of Rs. 4,21,979/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Omkar Textile Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT456Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application, at the instance of the Revenue, seeking stay of implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-5-2003 directing the Deputy Commissioner to sanction the refund claim made by the respondents/assessee. Prima facie, we are of the view that the Revenue has made out a strong case in its favour against the direction issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is the case of the Revenue that the respondents have not challenged the original fixation of its capacity and therefore, cannot seek a refund on the basis of a subsequent decision in the case of another assessee.In the light of the above, there will be a stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is impugned in this appeal....

Ceat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT370Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether Banbury mixer imported by the appellant, should be classified in 8477.80 of the Customs Tariff as claimed by the importer or heading 8479.82 as decided by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). "84.77 - Machinery for working rubber or plastics or for the manufacturer of products from these materials, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter. 8477.51 - For moulding or rethreading pneumatic tyres or for moulding or otherwise forming inner tubes "84.79 - Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter. 8479.20 - Machinery for the extraction or preparation of animal or fixed vegetable fats or oils 8479.30 - Presses for the manufacture of particle board or fibre building board of wood or other ligneous materials and other machinery for treating wood or cork 8479.82 - Mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifti...

V. Vidyasagar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT86Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Gowri Shankar, Member (T) - Jayakrishna Aluminium Ltd., appellant in appeal C/953/97 applied for and was granted four advance licences permitting it to import 393 tons of aluminium ingots. These ingots were to be utilised in the manufacture of 377.25 tons of extruded aluminium products. In accordance with the licence, this appellant imported in January and May 1995 aluminium ingots weighing 395.58 tons cleared them without payment of duty in terms of exemption contained in 204/1992.Out of this quantity, 176 tons was imported through the port of Nhava Sheva and it is this quantity that the Commissioner in his order impugned in this appeal and this Tribunal is concerned with. The officers visited on 27-9-1997 the factory of the appellant and its office and seized various documents relating to imports and exports.The officers also noted that on that date there was no aluminium imported either in the form of ingots extruded product was not available in the appellant's factory or office...

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT179Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 64/86 will be available to Lovejoy couplings. The notification exempts from duty parts of power driven pumps falling one of the Chapters 83, 84 and 85 of the tariff.In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Assistant Commissioner that the exemption will not be available because these couplings are not parts of power driven pumps but are parts of pumps. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have relied upon their earlier orders.The appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)' earlier order has disposed of by the Tribunal in its decision reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 139. In that decision, the Tribunal, noting the clarification contained in Circular 224/58/96-CX., dated 26-6-1996 of the Board that the prime mover which is used to provide pump is part of a power driven pump held that the benefit of t...

Sanju Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved in this appeal is interpretation of Clause (b) of the 3rd proviso to Notification No.2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. The said clause puts a restriction requiring satisfaction of Customs officials that total value of impugned goods cleared under Paras 9.9 and 9.20 of Exim Policy 1997-2002, does not exceed 50% of the free on board value of export made during the year.It is the case of the appellants that not only goods exported out of the country should be taken into account under this clause but also deemed exports allowed by the Development Commissioner.2. The learned Advocate has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shabnam Synthetics Ltd. v. C.C.E. & C., Surat - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 123 (Tri.-Mumbai). We find that Shabnam follows the decision of Ginni International Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 172.However, the impugned order clearly notes that the decision in the case of Ginny cited supra was rendered in the context of Noti...