Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

thermoforming Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT553Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri K.V. Sahasrabudhe, learned Consultant for the appellants states that the main issue in this appeal is classification of plastic grills for Air-conditioners. Initially, the Board issued a Circular No.6/86/CX. 4, dated 25-9-1986 issuing guidelines for classification of various parts and accessories of refrigerator and air-conditioning machinery and appliances. In the said circular, classification for plastic grills was indicated under Chapter 39. Subsequently, another circular was issued in the year 1988 (incorporated in Trade Notice 69/1988, dated 6-5-1988 issued by C.C.E. Bombay-I) advising classification of certain refrigerator parts under Chapter 84. However, this circular did not revise classification for parts of Air-conditioners such as plastic grills. Subsequently, the Board in its Circular No. 121/32/95-CX, dated 2-5-1995 referred to its earlier Circular of 25-9-1986 and advised that plastic grills used in Air-conditioners would be more appropriately classified under Ch...

Nusli Davar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1022Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri M.V. Raveendran, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 crores on the appellant. His submission is that there is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant has in any manner dealt with the goods in question. The order of the adjudicating authority is based on the presumption. He also submitted that the appellant is not in any way benefited personally particularly when the goods are lying in the custody of official liquidator. His contention is that after reading Para 23 of the impugned order it appears that the adjudicating authority has totally gone by the consideration that the liquidation proceedings have started against the company while imposing such high penalty on the appellant. He also contended that there is no conscious non-observation of the law by the appellant in discharge of export obligation. In this regard he drew our attention to page 66 of the Order-in-Original wherein i...

Rifox Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT942Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that initially the date of hearing was fixed in the month of March, 2001. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 11-4-2001. In the meantime the Commissioner was changed and a new Commissioner has taken over. The next date of hearing was fixed on 25-4-2001. On 24-4-2001 the applicants have written a letter making a request to the learned Commissioner that since 25-4-2001 is closed on account of Bharat Band, the matter may be adjourned to some other date. The learned Counsel submits that on earlier occasion the notice was sent to the Counsel also but for the date of hearing fixed on 21-8-2001, no notice was sent to the Counsel and the postal letter sent by the office of the Commissioner (Adjudication) to the appellants was returned with the remarks "not claimed returned to the sender". The Commissioner (Adjudication) passed an order on 20-12-2001 without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants in the matter...

Sitax Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to confiscate a consignment of button cells imported by it on the ground that the goods were misdeclared, both with regard to their identity and value. Penalty was also proposed. The Additional Commissioner did not find any basis for ordering either confiscation of the goods or penalty on the importer and vacated the notice. The Commissioner appealed this order.Disposing of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, as "being neither legal nor proper" and concluded by saying "The appeal by the department is thus allowed." Hence this appeal.3. In the absence of the appeal filed by the Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), we are unable to say what exactly was the relief that was sought to be obtained. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) order is incomplete, in that it has...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT324Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Notification No. 16/94-CE. (N.T.) prescribed certain documents as modvatable, provided the documents were issued before 1-4-94 and credit was taken on or before 30-6-94. At Serial No. 14, a subsidiary gate pass issued by the Superintendent was so indicated. The assessee in this case, took credit on the basis of such a certificate issued later, i.e., on 5-4-94. The credit was denied by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner allowed the appeal by the assessee.Hence, the appeal from the revenue.2. The Commissioner's order indicates that he had not understood the time-frame prescribed by the said notification. His belief that the benefit of the notification was available was wrong. At the same time I observe that it was the jurisdictional Superintendent, who in the face of the said notification also had continued to issue the subsidiary gate pass. The assessee could have produced an alternate document, which requirement was not understood by him, since he believed in the wron...

Chamunda Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal relates to interpretation of Notification No. 159/86 dtd. 01/03/1986. The Notification allows exemption to machinery imported for processing and manufacture of Gem and Jewellery for the purpose of export. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that the words 'solely' or 'exclusively' has not been used in the Notification and hence the Notification benefit cannot be denied even if the machinery is used for producing goods for local consumption. He cites the decision of another Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v.Shephali Arts 2. We have heard Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R. for the Department, who states that only a few consignments have been exported by the appellants and rest of the production has been cleared for local consumption. As such, he opposes the stay petition and states that the appellants are not eligible for exemption under the aforesaid Notification.3. We have heard rival s...

Godrej and Boyace Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common notice issued to Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd (Godrej for short), its employees, Vijay Ambre & Co and Dataram Ambre, the proprietor of Vijay Ambre, alleged that Godrej had engaged "hired labourers viz Vijay Ambre and Company and got manufactured suction line and P.V.C. gaskets" out of the machinery, equipments and raw materials supplied by Godrej. The notice called upon both Godrej and Vijay Ambre & Company to pay duty on the inputs and proposed penalty. It also proposed penalties on employees of Godrej and Vijay Ambre & Co. After considering the submissions made by various parties, the Commissioner found that Vijay Ambre & Company was the hired labourers of Godrej and the goods therefore had been manufactured by Godrej. She demanded duty from Godrej, ordered confiscation of part of the goods that has been manufactured and imposed penalties on Godrej, as also on H.B.Ghadially. Hence these appeals by Godrej and H.B. Ghadially.2. The principal contention o...

Medinex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT295Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants were permitted re-importation of 317 Kgs. of Dihydralazine Sulphate without payment of customs duty on provisional assessment subject to re-export within six months or such extended period. They submitted a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2,69,181/- which was valid till 20-11-1995 and further extended till 22-2-1996.Since they failed to submit evidence regarding re-export, the lower authorities ordered the appellants to pay customs duty of Rs. 2,99,405/- and directed the bank to remit the amount of Rs. 2,69,181/- in terms of the Bank Guarantee.2. The appellants claimed that the impugned goods were re-processed after rejection by the purchaser in Germany and was finally re-exported on 5-6-1996. They claimed that while their application for re-exporting the goods was pending, the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order, ordering payment of duty and encashing Bank Guarantee.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellants af...

Morarjee Goculdas Spg. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT899Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri A.V. Naik, learned Advocate for the appellants states that exemption for trade samples was withdrawn and hence the appellants started paying duty on such samples since April, 1994. However, since the length of the samples was less than 45 cm., the appellants paid duty on a value as applicable to fents and rags. Subsequently, in view of the audit objections, the appellants paid differential duty of Rs. 54,009/- for the period 1-4-1994 to 31-12-1994 by debit entry No. 117, dated 12-8-1995 under protest. Thereafter, a refund claim was filed by them on 18-9-1995 which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also rejected their appeal. He prays that refund should be allowed and cites the decision in the case of Davanagere Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Chairman, C.B.E. & C.-1991 (55) E.L.T. 295 (Kar.) in support of his claim that no show cause notice was issued in this case for payment of the differential duty.2. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learn...

Shri Vijay Ankush Tamhanekar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. Ravi. M. Hirani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant and also that he is not liable in any manner for the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs as imposed on him. In his regard he also submitted a copy of the Oral Order dated 17/12/2002 passed by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay wherein the applicant has been discharged under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and the Court has interalia noted that there is no evidence against the accused to connect him with the alleged crime except the statement of the witnesses which are from the office of the consignee Akash Italian Marbles, Santacruz. There is no nexus between the accused and the crime.2. Shri M.H. Sheikh, Learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in para 13 of the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) has recorded as under:- "it is obvious from above that the prime mover are based in Dubai namely Shri Aftab Batki and his men Sh...