Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Pravara Medical Trust Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 23.67 lakhs and penalty imposed of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The medical equipment imported by the applicant has been ordered to be confiscated by the Commissioner but permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Representative of the applicant does not disclose to us any intention of redemption of the goods.3. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the ground that the applicant, a hospital, was unable to show compliance which the requirement contained in notification 64/88 which requires a minimum number of inpatients and outpatients to be treated. Its representative accepts that there was no evidence in support of the claim made before the Commissioner, relating to the number of patients so treated; he says that the document has been destroyed.4. Prima facie therefore, we do not find case for the applicant. The Commissioner himself records that the hospital is a charitable trust which renders service to ...

Cce Vs. Gharda Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC510Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order in appeal. We have heard both sides, the operative portion of the impugned order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is extracted below: I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants. I find that refund has been rejected primarily on the grounds. 1) That the incidence was passed on to the customers in the form of cost of the final product inasmuch as entire Caippca i.e. 1,69,246 Kgs. was manufactured on 30th October itself and cleared subsequently and 2) That the refund claim was not filed in a proper form. As regards the first ground, I consider it to be factually incorrect. The appellants have given a detailed statement showing the production of Caippca from July 1989 to October 1990 which shows that quantity of 1,69,246 Kgs. of Caippca was produced between July 1989 to October 1990. It is a fact that duty was paid by the appellants before October 1990. The department has also not...

Sankalp Food Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT166Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellants states as follows :- The appellants are engaged in manufacture of "Edible Preparations" with due Central Excise Registration. The present proceedings relate to their products - "Ten-0-Lip and Ten-0-Tube" falling under Chapter Heading 2108.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a category of Soya Milk Powder, which are predominantly high quality foods, providing nutrition support in all types of ailments and which can be used to replace full meals. The issue is regarding the claim made by the appellant in their Classification Declaration No. 7/98-99, dated 22-6-98 for concessional rate of duty at 8% (instead of the tariff rate of 18%) under Notification No. 5/98, dated 2-6-98 in respect of the products in question. In the said Classification Declaration, the appellants have described the products as "Soya Protein Isolate/Soya Textured Protein, whether or not containing other goods/ingredients but no...

Chemspec Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT366Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants states that the impugned order has been passed ignoring letter of intimation given on 24th August, 2000 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The said letter clearly specifies the details of inputs/raw materials/semi-finished goods sent for further manufacture/processing/other operation to the appellants' own unit. The addresses of the units were also given and it was indicated that the impugned goods are being sent for filtration. This intimation was given under Central Excise Rule 57AC(5). He says that the impugned order is full of contradiction. The appellants have been charged that they sent the goods for storage whereas the order mentions about processing.Besides, he cites that Rule 210 provides for maximum penalty of Rs. 5,000/- whereas Rs. 10 Lacs has been imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A/210. He also states that the goods have been clearly accounted for, the movement was u...

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT990Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved in this case is whether switches of various kinds are to be classified under Heading 8535/8536 depending on the voltage or to be classified under Heading 8504 as part of transformers (Tap Changer). In addition to the case laws cited before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants rely on the decision in the case of CC v. Kumudam Publications (P) Ltd. - 1997 (96) E.L.T.226 (S.C) which held that, "It may not also be entirely correct to say that in no case can the end use or function of the goods is relevant on the question of classification." However, we find that while passing the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the product under Heading 8535/8536 not only going by the specific entry in the Tariff but has also taken into account the function of the impugned goods. As such, we find that there is no case for interference with the order passed by the lower authority....

Rama Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT755Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri A. Hidayatulla, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the impugned order has been passed holding that the appellants have not utilised 1971.448 MT of imported waste paper in the manufacture of the final product, but have disposed of the same elsewhere clandestinely thereby evading customs duty of Rs. 64,71,153/-, He states that there is no evidence for coming to the aforesaid conclusion except the statement of Shri Mangtani, Senior Vice-President of the appellant company. He produces a photo copy of the said statement to demonstrate that the relevant portion of the statement which is being relied on by the department has been interpolated. He also states that the statement is written by the handwriting of the Inspector, though Shri Mangtani is well educated to write his own statement. He states that if the statement is discounted, there is no other evidence to prove that there has been any non-utilisation of the imported raw material or its clandestine removal. He a...

Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC711

1. The learned Advocate relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. -2000 (38) RLT 619 (S.C.) to say that since the civil appeal filed by Revenue under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act has been dismissed, the CEGAT judgment dated 23-10-2001 in the appellant's own case gets merged with the judgment of the Apex Court and should be deemed as approval of the decision of the CEGAT by the Apex Court. He cites the following case laws in further support of his arguments :- (5) Ess Ess Engineers & Ors. - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 596 (T) = 1998 (29) RLT 859 (CEGAT) 2. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R. and Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt.C.D.R. appearing on behalf of the department support the impugned order. They state that exemption under Serial No. 26 of the table annexed to Notification No. 88/88 was claimed all along and that coverage under Serial No. 3 cannot be extended to the synthetics detergent cakes classifiable under Heading 34.01.3. After hearing...

Nikunj Exim Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC190

1. This is a case of import of Bullet Proof Jacket. The Additional Commissioner has absolutely confiscated the Bullet Proof Jacket holding the same to be an article under the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1959 and, therefore, its import unauthorized in view of the Notification No.40/70 dtd. 6.6.1970. He has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 7,000 on the appellants and has noted that there is no evidence on record to show that the goods have been imported for Maharashtra Police as claimed by the importers.2. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate for the appellants states that according to import policy against I.T.C.H.S. sub-heading 630720.00, Bullet Proof Jacket which is a life jacket is allowed free. He also contends that Bullet Proof Jacket is neither an instrument nor a device and, therefore, the same cannot be considered as arms to attract Notification No. 40/70. He also challenges the valuation adopted by the lower authorities and states that no penalty can be imposed as the import i...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vadilal Embroidery Unit

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this case is how to reckon "meter length" under Rule 96ZI. Shri Ishwar Singh, learned J.D.R. appearing for the department states that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on Baroda Commissionerate Trade Notice No. 289/69, dated 18-3-1969 and has taken into account the order of an Additional Commissioner in another case whereas he should have gone by the specific wording of the Rule. He further states that the trade notice issued by the Collectorate can not supersede express provision in the rule itself. He further states that the department is not disputing that if there are two frames and rollers in a machine, the machine has to be considered as a single machine. However, according to Rule 96ZI(6)(a) the 'meter length' in relation to a machine means the distance between the points provided for the first and the last needles on such machine. He argues that in this case where the machine has two frames, the assessee should have taken the meter length as distan...

Arvind Goenka and NitIn Palan and anr. Vs. Pennzoil Products Company a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR136; 2003(6)BomCR132

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned counsel.2. The property known bearing Survey No. 182 of Parel Sewree Division situate Behind Swan Mills at Kokershi Jivraj Road, Sewree, Mumbai-15 more particularly described in Item B of Schedule B to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sewree property') belongs to Mrs. Premkumar Hansraj Palan and Mr. Nitinkumar Hansraj Palan (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Palan or the landlords'). The Sewree property was in occupation of Pennzoil India Limited, a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which is the defendant No. 2 in this suit.3. The defendant No. 2 company was promoted by Mr. Arvind Goenka, the plaintiff herein, and his family members and his group companies. The plaintiff and his associates held about 91% of equity share capital of defendant No. 2 company and balance was held by the employee. Subsequently, the defendant No. 1 which is a foreign company incorporated and registered in accordance with the laws of...