Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pinku Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT769Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Two questions arise for our consideration in this batch of appeals.The first is whether the benefit of exemption contained in Notification 1/93 would be available in respect of goods manufactured by Pinku Industries and supplied to Telebrand (I) Mfg. & Assembling Pvt. Ltd. (Telebrand for short). The second is classification of the vegetable slicer manufactured by Pinku Industries.2. Telebrand had placed orders with Pinku Industries for manufacture and supply of sunglasses of the brand name Ambervision and of vegetable slicers which bore on them the words "Super Slicer", Pinku Industries cleared the goods without payment of duty by claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 1/93. The common notice issued to these two firms, and to Hirji Gada, partner of Pinku Industries, and to Hitesh Israni, Managing Director of Telebrand, proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that both the sunglasses and the slicer bore brand names which belonged to Telebrand. While...

Hayagriv Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT541Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn. Between 16th March, 1995 and 16th June, 1995, the duty on this product was leviable on a tariff value determined under Section 3(2) of the Act, Rs. 98/- per kg. The notification fixing a tariff value was withdrawn with effect from 16th June, 1995. The appellant thereafter cleared the goods at the prices determined by it.2. Six notices issued to it alleged short payment of duty on the clearances of yarn that it made between June, 1996 and August 1997, on the ground that clearances were made at prices lesser than Rs. 98/- and lower than the tariff value which was fixed. Adjudicating upon the notices, the Deputy Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty. Hence these appeals.3. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that, in the absence of any tariff value, it was open to it to sell the goods at any price. There bei...

P.T. Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT1117Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel hot rolled and cold rolled pattas and patties falling under Chapter 72 of the schedule to CETA, 1985. The SS cold rolled pattas and patties are liable to duty. The hot rolled pattas and patties are chargeable to nil rate of duty. The appellants are using common inputs for both the aforesaid dutiable and exempted final products. The appellants were availing Modvat credit of the duty paid on such inputs. Accordingly, the appellants have been paying an amount equal to 8% of the sale price of exempted hot rolled pattas and patties in terms of Rule 57CC(1) as it stood prior to 1.4.2000 and under Rule 57AD with effect from 1.4.2000 whenever such hot rolled pattas and patties were cleared from their factories, the provisions under both the Rules are similar.2. According to the learned Counsel, the department's case is that the appellants have collected 8% of ...

Ram Pamnani Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT536Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Ram Pamnani, the appellant before us, is proprietor of Shalu Textile Industries. This firm applied in 1992 for issue of advance licences permitting to import polyester filament yarn and polyester partially oriented, on the ground that export of goods required such a licence.The licensing authority issued to it three licences, two in 1992 and the third in 1994. Utilising these licences, the appellant imported the yarn in 1993 and 1994 and cleared them without payment of duty and claimed exemption contained in Notification 204/92. Subsequently, the Customs authorities concluded that the appellant had manipulated in its favour, in the export promotion copy of the shipping bills which it had furnished to the licensing authority as proof of its export, weight in one case and the composition of the fabrics in two other cases. On these facts being reported to the licensing authority, a notice was issued to the appellant proposing to suspend these licences. By order passed on 29-11-1995, t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jaysons Hard Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is whether cold galvanising compound, the product imported by the respondent, is consumer goods and therefore requires a licence for its importation. The Deputy Commissioner has held the goods to be consumer goods. His view was overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal by the importer.2. The product, manufactured by ZRC Products Company of the USA, is stated in the catalogue of the manufacturer to be cold galvanizing compound, a liquid containing 95% zinc in the dried film that bonds to clean iron, steel or aluminium through electrochemical action to provide maximum protection against rust and rust creepage. Among the applications are stated to be: in place of hot-dip galvanizing, to repair damaged hot galvanizing, to regalvanize worn hot-dip surfaces, to protect weldments and to repair.inorganic zinc surfaces. Some of the applications given in the brochure are offshore rigs, long-term protection in any fabr...

Ruby Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT382Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation for the purpose of assessment of three autoconers imported by the appellant. The goods were second hand being of German manufacture and supplied from Japan. The price declared by the buyer of the goods was on the basis of the invoices of the supplier. The goods were provisionally assessed to duty as the officer who examined them expressed the view that the value was underdeclared. Subsequently, the assessment was finalised after hearing the importer who waived issue of the notice. In his order, the Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that, in the light of the failure by the importer to produce manufacturer's invoices, the value of goods should be determined by depreciating from the original value.2. The valuation of similar goods is the subject matter of the decision of the Tribunal in Rajendra Mills Ltd. v. CC - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 68. In this decision, the Tribuna...

Schlumber Asia Services Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri M. Setalwad, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that these three appeals are essentially on the same issue. The appellants imported some items through courier, part of which came through Madras (Appeal No. C/461/02-MUM) and partly through Mumbai Airport (Appeal No. C/528/02-MUM). The third appeal is against penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on official of the appellant company. The learned advocate's main submissions are:- 1) The Order-in-original has been passed without taking into consideration exemption Notification fixing the effective rates of duty on the ground of mis-statement and suppression. The effective rates cannot be denied and duty cannot be charged at the tariff rate on such grounds. 2) If the duty amounts are correctly computed, the amount paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice would exceed both the amounts payable. Consequently, no interest would be chargeable under Section 28AB. 3) The provisions of Section 28AB and Section 114A cannot be in...

Trinity Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT539Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellant to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on iron and steel that was supplied to it by Visvesvaraya Iron & Steel Ltd., Bhadravathi.The notice issued to it proposed to deny credit on consignment of these goods received from 31st August 1993 to 31st March, 1994 on the ground that the Circular F. No. 263/47/89-CX. 8, dated 23-10-1989 of the Board had said that the certificates issued by Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL for short) and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO for short) were recognised to be documents specified in Rule 57G on which credit could be taken and certificates issued by no other public undertakings would be valid in respect of goods manufactured or procured by it. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. The order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us.2. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appel...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Mehratex India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT603Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against a common order of the lower appellate authority involving 58 assessees, and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'Texturised Yarn' falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 5403.00 and availing modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Credit on anti-static lubricating oil, bobbins, spools, caps and packing material for the final product was sought to be disallowed on the ground that the value of the above inputs was not included in the value of the final product manufactured by the respondents. Show cause notices were therefore issued for the recovery of different amount of modvat credit from the various respondents, under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the dem...

Mr. YatIn Nilkanth Bastav Vs. the Executive Magistrate, Shrivardhan,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR621; 2003(6)BomCR334

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 16.7.1996 bearing No. TCSC/ENG/COM/128/YNB whereby the said respondent No. 2, namely, the Committee for Scrutiny and verification of Caste Claims, Pune, held that the petitioner does not belong to the Mahadev Koli, Schedule Tribe Community thereby invalidating his claim of belonging to the said community.2. In support of his claim the petitioner had produced before respondent No. 2 i.e. the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claims, Pune, in all 15 documents. Interalia, documents at serial Nos. 5 and 9 which are birth extracts of the petitioner's father and uncle wherein their Caste is recorded as Koli. Both these documents pertain to the period 1941 to 1948 i.e. prior to the Presidential Order of 1950 notifying a schedule tribe. Document at serial No. 10 is the High School leaving certificate of the petitioner's uncle wherein he is shown as belonging to the Caste Mahadev...