Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Mek Slotted Angles (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by MEK Slotted Angles is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 42,75,729/- and equivalent penalty. The application by Sabir Lokhandwala, its director is asked to deposit penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. The demand duty has arisen as a result of the classification by the Commissioner of the goods manufactured by the applicant as "other furniture" under heading 94.03 of the Tariff. The applicants case is that it manufactured slotted angle and channel which are ultimately used by the buyer of the goods items of furniture or other goods. In the manner in which the goods are cleared they are rightly classified as slotted angle and channel under heading 72.16 of the tariff.3. We are prima facie unable to agree with this proposition. The Commissioner has invoked the provision of Rule 2(a) interpretative rules of the tariff. This provides inter alia that any reference to the tariff in the goods shall include such goods unassembled or disassembled. In response to our request to see ...

Aslam Abdul Kadir Kapadia, S.T. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Centra ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 7,26,914/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed upon the partnership firm and Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon the authorised signatory of the firm, arise out of the order of the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals) who has upheld the adjudication order which holds that the applicants clandestinely manufactured and cleared a quantity of 10,026,393 kgs., of crimped yarn as noted in the private records but did not reflect the same in the Central Excise records and therefore these goods have escaped payment of duty.2. On hearing both sides and nothing the plea advanced that during some part of the period in dispute the rough register showed lesser production than that reflected in the Central Excise records while in some part of the period the entries in the rough registers showed excess production when compared to the Central Excise records, nothing the plea of financial hardship and the reply of the learned SDR that the material on rec...

Surya Lamination Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the stay order No. CI/907/WZB/2003 dated 01/04/2003 pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty was directed and compliance was to be reported today. None appeared for the appellant when the case was called nor when the matter was called for the second time, initially the matter was passed over.2. There is no proof of compliance and therefore the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Alexcon Foamcast Ltd. and Kiran P. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Alexcon Foam Cast Ltd. (the Importer) was granted a licence under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme on 24-5-1993 for import of capital goods of a value of Rs. 11.88 crores. The licence enabled it to avail of the partial exemption from duty contained in the Notification 160/1992 subject to its exporting before May 1998 (within 5 years from the date of the licence), the specified quantity of metal castings to be manufactured out of the machinery imported by it. The importer accordingly claimed, and was granted this exemption, after executing a bond supported by a bank guarantee, undertaking to export goods of this value within the specified period, or such extended period as may be allowed.2. For various reasons, it appears, the importer was unable to comply with the requirements of export. It is contended that the project for manufacture of the castings could not be set up and commercial production not commenced until 1996. In September 1996, the importer wrote to the...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The miscellaneous application which came up for hearing yesterday and adjourned today is for early hearing of the appeal and for restoration of the stay application which was dismissed as not pressed in the absence of the appellant or its representative.2. Accepting the contention that the appellant did not receive the notice of hearing, we restore the stay application.3. Finding that the issue is already covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court, we waive deposit and list the appeal for hearing today.After hearing both sides, we proceed to dictate our order.4. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the finding in the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs impugned before him, that the appellant was liable to pay duty on the quantity of the crude oil that it imported based on the alleged records of the ship stand and not stand by the appellant on the lower quantity that of the oil that were received from the shore tank that is pumped from the...

S.Y. Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein filed a shipping bill dated 07/10/1996 for export of Indian artistic handicrafts of brass artwares and Indian artistic handicrafts of wooden artwares and incense stick. The total FOB value of the export goods was declared as Rs. 12,12,570/- and drawback @ 23% of the FOB value on 6224.240 kgs. of brass totalling to Rs. 2,32,606/- was claimed. The goods were examined and it was found that, as against 25564 pieces plus 341 sets declared in the shipping documents only 4450 pieces plus 341 sets of brass artwares were actually there. On the other hand in respect of wooden artwares it was found that there were 29069 pieces plus 1824 sets as against declared number of 9935 pieces. The total number of brass artwares found was therefore much less than what was declared while the position vis-a-vis in respect of wooden artwares was the revenue. The department alleged that this was an act of mis-declaration on the part of exporters and...

Western Miniforge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,23,652/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants were not entitled, after 01/04/2000, to debit 10% of inputs value while sending out the inputs for further manufacture and reversing the debit initially made because of the amendment doing away with the requirement of debit of 10% of the value of inputs.2. The submission of the applicant, firstly is that the applicants were not aware of the change in the law by which the requirement of debit was done away with and secondly that the demand is barred by limitation as the debit and subsequent reversal thereof was within the knowledge of the department as they were filing RT-12 return regularly reflecting the fact that they were reversing the debit initially made by them.3. After hearing both sides and nothing the plea of limitation has been raised right from the stage of reply to s...

Lacure Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides duly representing by Shri V.S. Nankani for the appellants and Shri A.K. Saxena, Ld. JDR for the Revenue, we allow stay petition and precede to hear the appeal as much as the same is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case. The demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellant and penalty has been imposed by denying them benefits under Notification 208/92 - CUS on the ground that the imports made by the appellant on the basis of the Transfer Advance License was not in accordance with law inasmuch as the exporter of the goods have availed the benefit of modvat credit. We find that the Tribunal in the appellant's own case as reported in 2002 (140) ELT 169 (Tri-Mumbai) has relied upon its earlier order in the case of Auto Ignition LTd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and has held that there must be not only be a basis for alleging that the condition in the notification had been contravened, there must also be a bas...

Biochem Pharm. Inds., Shri K.N. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty in all the above thee stay petitions, we take up the appeals for final decision with consent of both sides. Short point required to be decided in the present appeal is as regards the valuation of physician sample of medicine being manufactured by the first appellant M/s. Bio-chem Pharm. Indus.2. Shri A.V. Naik, learned advocate draws our attention to the written submission filed before the Commissioner wherein contention was raised by them that since the value of physician sample has already been included in the price of the trade packs, the assessable value has to be determined under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rule, 1975. He relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. C.E.G.A.T. Mumbai reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T.532 (S.C.) vide which the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after taking into account. The appellants contention is that t...

The Ballarpur Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I have heard both sides. The learned advocate for the appellants states that they have taken modvat credit on capital goods on documents which are invoices issued by either 1^st stage or 2^nd stage registered dealers and are therefore covered by Rule 57 G (3) (b). He further contends that the time limit specified in Rule 57G(4) will not apply since the said provision relates to documents which are referred to in Rule 57 G (3) (g). It is his contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied the provision of Rule 57G(4) to deny the credit to the appellants.2. The learned J.D.R. states that the original copies of the duplicate invoices which have been produced in the Court today can not be verified without reference to the original authorities for ascertaining the correctness of the claim of the appellants that these are the type of documents issued by 1^st stage and 2^nd stage registered dealers.Accordingly, he states that he has no objection to the case being remanded f...