Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Akash Polyester Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT383Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arise as a result of the amendment carried on 25-4-1994 to notification 1/93. On this date, notification 19/94 was issued, inserting in the table to the notification 1/93 goods in sub-headings 54.10 and 54.03 of the Tariff. As a result, manufacturers of crimped and textured yarn became entitled to the notification.Various manufacturers of these products including among other respondents to these appeals by the Commissioner or the appellants themselves, filed declarations consequent on this notice signifying their intention to avail of the exemption. They thereafter proceeded to avail of the exemption. The declarations by the manufacturers were filed on date subsequent to 25-4-1998. Notices were issued by the department to all such manufacturers. The notices proceeded on the basis that the first clearance to the extent of first 30 lakhs which were completely exempted from duty and subsequently 20 lakhs which was partly exempted. The clearance made from 1st April, 1994 ...

Bhikusa Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals have been filed against one order in appeal relating to three show cause notices and there orders in originals. Two of the appeals have ben filed after a delay of two days. The applications for condonation of delay in respect of these two appeals are allowed considering the fact that the delay is only for two days.2. The main issue involved in this case is interpretation of notification No.8/96 dated 23.7.1996. The appellants used 100% waste paper as raw material for manufacturing paper. The lower authorities have treated waste paper as 'Rags' and have denied the exemption. The learned consultant for the appellants points out that the notification itself defined 'Rags' to be cut pieces of saree and fabrics and hence waste paper cannot be covered under the said definition. He also states that whether waste paper is 'Rags' was not even the subject matter of the show cause notice and the lower authorities have traversed beyond the scope of the show cause notice. He furth...

Alok Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants re-imported two consignments of 100% cotton bleached drill fabrics totalling 67088.20 L.Mtrs. under their bills of entry Nos. 8363 and 8373, both dated 21.07.1998 which were originally exported in the year 1996-97. The re-imported consignments were used for making dyed fabrics. The appellants availed modvat credit of duty amounting to Rs. 9,57,743/- which was paid at the time of clearing the re-imported consignments from Customs. The lower authorities have denied the credit resulting in this appeal.2. It is seen from the impugned order-in-appeal that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the credit on the ground that the appellants have paid basic customs duty in terms of Notification No. 94/96-CUS dated 16.12.1996 at the time of re-importation and therefore no credit of the same can be taken since the duty paid by the appellants is not the additional customs duty.3. We have heard both sides. We find that notification No. 94/96-CUS dated 16.12.1996 exempts re-importe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krupp Industries (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal by the department against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune, who by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the department, accepting the contentions raised by the respondent that the goods which were removed from the factory part by part and erected at the respondent's client's site would not be exigible to Central Excise duty.2. The respondent is engaged in the execution of the turnkey projects, viz. cement, sugar and material handling plants falling under Chapter 84 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department issued several show cause notices to the respondent assessee alleging that they have not discharged the correct duty liability on the bought-out items and sub-contracted items which vary from 25 to 65% of the full contract price and also had not paid duty on erection and commissioning charges. It was alleged that in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, the manufacture includes any process incidental ...

Raja Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by Raja Industries against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, communicating to the assessee his view that he cannot reconsider the refusal to accept the declaration dated 31.1.1999 filed by the appellant under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. On our prima facie view that the Tribunal has not jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, we had issue notice to the assessee, while the appeal was dismissed on this ground, the appellant had not replied nor represented.3. The provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 a declaration filed under which this appeal relates, do not form part of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Customs Act, 1962 or any of the rules made thereunder, deriving their authority from the provisions of the Finance Act, 1998. There is no provision i...

Micro Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT84Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant reimported a rotary die cutting machine which it had manufactured and exported. While reimporting the machine, it claimed, and was granted, the benefit of the exemption from duty contained in entry 1 of the table to Notification 158/95. This entry grants exemption to reimported goods subject to various conditions, one of them being that the goods must be re-exported within six months from the date of importation or such extended period not exceeding six months, as may be granted by the Commissioner. The appellant did not comply with this contention. While the machine was reimported on 29-8-2000 which was re-exported on 26-7-2002. Notice was therefore issued demanding duty on the machine by denying the exemption and imposing penalty. Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 4.18 lakhs approximately and imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Act of Rs. 2 lakhs. Hence this appeal.3. The appeal itself is limited to penalty im...

Primella Sanitary Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufacture Sanitary Napkins falling under sub-heading 4818.10/5601.10 which were liable to duty at the rate of 8% upto 29/02/2000. At the end of dated 29/02/2000, the appellants had stock of finished goods valued of Rs. 6,69,839/-. Sanitary Napkins were completely exempted from duty under Notification No. 7/2000 dtd.01/03/2000. The stock of Sanitary Napkins lying in stock at the end of 29/02/2000 was cleared on or after 01/03/2000 without payment of duty claiming benefit of Notification No. 7/2000 dtd. 01/03/2000. The issue involved in this appeal relates to demand of duty on such clearances.The Assistant Commissioner has confirmed a demand of Rs. 39,458/- on such clearances on the ground that these were liable to duty at the rate of 4.8% on a clearance value of Rs. 2,13,244/- and at the rate of 6.4% on the subsequent clearance value of Rs. 4,56,595/- being the rates prevailing at the time these goods were manufactured in terms of Notification No. 9/99-CE dtd. 28/02...

Arihant Electrical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT712Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by 97 days has been made on the ground that the son of the applicant who happens to be one of the partners was suffering from slip disk since long. The medical certificate dated 17-8-2002 states that he was advised rest till cure. I do not see any certificate which states that he has been cured. The impugned order was passed on 31-1-2002 and it was served on the appellant on 7-2-2002. The appeal ought to have been filed on 7-5-2002. The appeal has been filed on 19-8-2002. The medical certificate is dated 17-8-2002. In the medical certificate there is no indication as to when the applicant Kunal Raj Punamia fell ill and when he was cured. The reason for not filing the appeal from 7-5-2002 onwards is not supported by any evidence before me. To be fair, Shri G.C. Biradar, learned Counsel told me that the applicant has been signing some cheques on behalf of the appellant's firm/business. Shri Biradar, pleads very vehemently ...

Sanjay Indl. Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-original dated 21st July, 1997 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had ordered the classification of the goods in question under sub-heading 7326.90 of the CETA and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 13,19,623/- with penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs payable with interest @ 20% against the firm, appellant No. 1, and also imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs each on the other appellants.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under- The firm, M/s. Sanjay Industrial Corporation, appellant No. 1, is a Proprietorship concern of Shri Sanjay R. Mehta (appellant No. 2). The appellant No. 3, Shri Suresh R. Mehta, is brother of appellant No. 2, who looks after the day-to-day affairs of the firm. The firm is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Circles, M.S. Rings, M.S. Squares, M.S. Ractangles and other M.S. Profiles and is holding Central Excise Licence for trading the excisable ...

Premier Glass Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant at the relevant time was engaged in working on mirrors that were given to it by its customers and returned them after such working. We are told that the work consisted of bevelling the edges, or engraving on the mirror in order to imprint on it a picture or an artistic design specified by the customer. The notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of duty of the value of the processes that it carried out on the ground that these processes amounted to manufacture. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal for duty. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the correctness of the Assistant Commissioner's order. Hence this appeal.2. The reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) has advanced for his conclusi'on that the processes in question amounted to manufacture is contained in the part of his order which is extracted below : "It is observed that the Appellants are engaged in processing of edgeworking, engraving, drilling, ename...