Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Rana Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT232Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,83,013/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as a result of classification of aluminium composite panels imported by the applicants herein under Tariff Heading 3920.99 as against the importer's claim for assessment under Customs Tariff Heading 7610.90.2. On hearing both sides we find that the classification has been arrived at on the basis of the test report and therefore although the applicants submit that identical goods have been imported by them through Nhava Sheva, wherein the assessment has been made under Chapter Heading 76, it cannot be said that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out since the contesting entries have to be considered in the face of the evidence on record and relevant Chapter Notes, etc.However, since the bank guarantee already covers the duty amount we direct the applicants to keep the bank guarantee alive during the pendency of the appeal and also direct that the ...

The Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Modern Petrofils Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC351

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner, who after following the Board's instructions vide its Circular No.263/28/89-CX.8 dated 26/06/89 which prescribes that it was not necessary that credit of particular duty should be utilized for payment of that duty only and further specifies that the credit of specified duty could be utilized for payment of any one of the specified duties when credit as well as utilization thereof has been granted for separately for the purposes of proper Revenue accounting and also that the said position was again clarified in the monthly meeting held and were communicated through Trade Notice No.151/89 dated 14/08/89. Therefore, held there was nothing a miss in the respondents herein having utilized their RG 23A, modvat credit balance to discharge the duties under Section 3 of additional duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles Act, 1978) 40 of 1978).2. Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that (i) the Commissi...

Gujarat Dyestuff Industries Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC788Tri(Mum.)bai

1. he issue in dispute relates to the admissibility of modvat credit on HDPE bags used in the packing of the finished products of the appellants herein, in the light of the language of Sub-clause (vi) of explanation to Rule 57A(1) which excludes "bags or sacks made out of fabrics (whether or not coated, covered or laminated with any other material) woven from strips or tapes of plastics." 2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records. The only ground on which the order of the authorities below denying modvat credit of Rs. 3,99,339.67 being the credit availed during the period November 1992 to December 1993 is challenged is that the bags in question were HDPE circular laminated bags and not bags made out of fabrics woven from strips or tapes of plastics. This ground is not tenable for the reason that the exclusion is not restricted only to bags or sacks made out of textile fabric and any woven material is also a fabric. Si...

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT467Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery arise out of the Commissioner of Cen.Excise & Customs, Aurangabad who has confirmed the following demands and imposed penalties as under:- (1) Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,54,92,842/- on a quantity of 3,35,632.418kms of optical fibres manufactured in the 100% EOU unit of the applicants (this unit was set up in March 2001)cleared clandestinely to their DTA unit (set up in 1993 and in 1995) and merged in a single DTA unit in January 1998) for further clearance to domestic market. (2). Central excise duty of Rs. 51,69,39,050/- on a quantity of 635625.7 kms of optical fibres manufactured in the 100% EOU unit and clandestinely cleared to the domestic market under the invoices to the DTA to show as if the same were manufactured in the DTA unit; (3). Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,63,60,797/- on a quantity of 9913kgs of preforms manufactured in the 100% EOU unit and cleared clandestinely to DTA unit. All the above demands...

B. Arun Kumar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT66Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, confiscating the air compressors imported by the appellant under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act but permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs 1.75 lakhs (in appeal 182/88) and Rs 1.80 lakhs (in appeal 187/87).2. The counsel for the appellant accepts that the importation was unauthorised. He however contends the fine which was imposed, equal to the value of the goods deserves reduction. The appellant had entered into a firm commitment for import of the goods on 20.2.1986 by opening of a letter of credit for their value based upon the opinion formed by it on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajnikant. The goods were importable in terms of the additional licences issued under paragraph 176 of the Import Policy 1978-79. It is only subsequent when the Supreme Court passed its judgment in Raj Parkash Chemicals Ltd a...

Modi and Modi Engineers and JaIn Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two stay applications are being disposed off by this common order, as the issues involved are the same.2. The officers of Central Excise during the course of their visit to its premises of M/s. Prime Industrial Value Manufacturing Co., a declared unit, conducted certain enquiries and subsequent to that a show cause notice was issued to various persons including the appellants before us today. Considering the material brought out on record during the investigation the lower authorities confirmed the duty demand and penalties as follows :- i) Modi & Modi Engineers - Rs. 2,69,152/- as duty and penalty of Rs. 3,50,021/- ii)Jain Trading Co. - Rs. 80,869/- as duty an penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- 3. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 65,000/- in the case of Modi & Modi Engineers as duty and Rs. 70,000/- as penalty which was paid and on M/s. Jain Trading Co. Rs. 40,000/- as duty and no amounts were ordered to deposit against the penalty imposed. Th...

impex Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT92Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of differential duty of Rs. 2,92,902/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon the first applicant and penalty of Rs. 40,000/- imposed upon the second applicant who is the partner of the first applicant firm, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. The issues in dispute relate to correct classification of goods imported by the applicants, under-invoicing of the goods in question as well as invalidity of import, as part of the value would not be covered by the licence produced by the applicants for clearance of the goods.2. We are informed that the goods have been provisionally released on the importers executing a bond and bank guarantee for Rs. 2,14,303/-.The applicants undertake to keep the bank guarantee alive during the pendency of the appeals. Since the Revenue has been secured prima facie by the above bank guarantee, we are of the view that no further pre-deposit is called for in the present case and, t...

Yuvraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the disallowance of credit taken on the basis of invoices which were issued prior to six months of taking the credit.2. I have considered the written submission filed by the appellant who is absent as requested in its letter of 06th October 2003, and also heard the departmental representative.3. The credit was taken on various dates between January and March 1995. The invoices were issued between 5th May and 13th July, 1994. It is not disputed by the appellant that the order of the adjudicating authority relates to credit taken six months after issue of the document. The limit of six months for taking credit was introduced by amendment made to Rule 57G on 28.6.1995. There was therefore no requirement when the credit was taken that it should be taken within six months from the date of issue of document. The Commissioner (Appeals) before whom this point was urged has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in C...

Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri V.K. Jain, C.A. along with Shri Vishal Agarwal, C.A. appeared on behalf of the appellant and they submitted that the issue relates to denial of modvat credit on the following items:- 2. They further submitted that the appellant's main activity is the manufacture of sponge iron by the process of reduction in the rotary kiln. For getting the proper quality continuous monitoring of the process is necessary. This monitoring is done by programmable logic controller. The PLC, after receiving signals from various sections displays the correction measures required. Instructions for such corrections are required to be conveyed to the operators at various stations, in the manufacturing area. These instructions are conveyed through loudspeakers. Thus, the said loudspeakers are a part of the process control system and they are to be treated as capital goods in terms of Rule-57Q. As regards the RCC pipes, they submitted that these pipes are used for covering the under ground cables, which ...

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three stay applications are being taken up together along with the appeals, as the issues involved are identical. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has dismissed all the appeals on the ground of non-compliance with the Provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the stay order vide which the appellants were directed to deposit an amount of approximately 50% of the total duty confirmed by the lower authorities. The total amount required to be deposited by the appellant in terms of the stay order passed by him, in all the three appeals comes to a tune of Rs.81.2 lakhs approximately. Out of the total duty demand of Rs. 1.57 crores and Rs. 54 lakhs of penalty approximately.2. Shri Ravinder Jain Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that while passing the stay order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the merits of the case, though he looked into their financial position but had failed to appreciate that the same is ve...