Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Helen Curtis

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A demand of duty was confirmed on the respondents alongwith penalty and interest. The respondent assessee appealed against the above said order. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order set aside the order of the lower authority holding that suppression was not proved and that the goods were not covered under Chapter heading 2204. During the period September 2000 to March 2001, the respondent-assessee paid, under protest, certain amounts as duty on the denatured Ethyl Alcohol captively manufactured & consumed during the period 01/04/1995 to 31/03/2000. The respondent assessee claimed refund, of this amount paid, on the grounds that Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal against the order of the lower authority. The Deputy Commissioner held that an amount of Rs. 5,61,472/-, paid, was refundable. However he held that the refund so eligible was hit by the principle of unjust enrichment therefore he ordered the same to be credited into the Consumer Welfare Fund est...

Finolex Industries Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., appellant in appeal C/8/02, imported between June 1995 and September, 1995 steel plates and other goods intended to use for fabricating two tanks for storage of ethylene a plant at Ratnagiri. Of Finolex Industries Ltd., appellant in appeal C/6/02. The import was in pursuance of an order placed by Larsen & Toubro for Finolex. The importer claimed the benefit of concessional assessment in heading 98.01 related to project import on the ground that the goods were required of 30% increase in the installed capacity of the plant of Finolex, who is engaged in the production of polyvinyl chloride resin for which the principal raw material is ethylene. The benefit of the concessional rate of duty was granted provisionally.2. Subsequently the department discovered that the storage tanks were not at any stage used for storage of the goods and had in fact leased to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for storage by it of liquified petroleum gas and therefore conclude...

Nakoda Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant filed this applicant for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. As the issue involved in this appeal is in respect of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty the appeal is being taken up at this stay stage without any predeposit of penalty.4. In this case the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. On 9.7.99 the officers of Revenue visited the factory of the appellant and during verification which was found that certain quantity of POY Textured Yarn were found unaccounted in their record.This unaccounted yarn was seized by the Revenue authorities. After issuance of show cause notice the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and ordered the same to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,12,000/- and penalty of Rs. 4,46,860/- were imposed on the appellant firm.5. The appellant filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh and also reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-.6. The...

Annapurna Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two stay applications are being disposed of by this common order. None appeared for M/s. Ludhiana Woolen & Silk Mills (P) Ltd. After hearing the Ld. Advocate for Annapurna Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. and DR for Revenue and considering the submissions. It is found the manufacturers have been fastened the liability of basic duty of Rs. 45,483/-BED and additional duty of Rs. 45,483/- AED and penalty of Rs. 90,966/- on 100% cotton Terry fabrics which were processed by them on job work. The Ld. Advocate fairly submits that they had not paid any amount pursuant to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as predeposit. The Ld. Advocate also makes a submission that if at all a liability of duty which would arise the same would not exceed Rs. 48,000/- or so and submits that they were not heard and/or the order was not sustainable. Since the same was passed without providing relied upon documents and made other pleas on merits.2. The Ld.DR submits that the Commissioner (A...

Laxmi Air Control Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT160Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri R.J. Parakh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that initially the appellants had taken credit of Rs. 35,310/- on electric motors which was used for the electrical blowers supplied duty free to M/s. B.A.R.C. as the appellants did not know the motors would be used for such duty-free supply but subsequently, they have reversed the amount of credit earlier taken by them. He submits that in view of the reversal, the demand of 8% on the value of the exempted goods amounting to Rs. 1,03,200/- is not sustainable. Shri Hemant Kotikar, learned S.D.R. appearing for Revenue submits that the amount has been demanded as reversal was made after passing the order-in-original.2. In view of the fact that the appellants have already reversed the credit taken on motors used for the exempted goods and there is no doubt about the identity and quantity of inputs used in the exempted goods, the demand of 8% on the value of exempted goods is not sustainable. Theref...

Besterna Chemicals, A.R. Balsara Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(161)ELT793Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand of duty on the product "Odonil" manufactured by Besterna Chemicals on the ground that it was correctly classifiable in heading 33.07 of the tariff as a room deodorant and not, as claimed by the appellant, in heading 38.08 of the tariff, imposing penalties on the assessee, A.R. Balsara the proprietor of the assessee and S.R.Choudhary, its factory manager.2. The notices issued to the assessee and the other two appellants alleged that the product was not classifiable in heading 38.08 as a moth repellent and by applying the higher rate of duty applicable to goods under heading 33.07, demanded duty short paid on clearances of the products. The notice dated 2.11.2001 demanded duty on clearances made between October 2000 and October 2001. The second notice dated 26.4.2002 demanded duty from June 1998 to September 2000 and invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground that the appellant did not disclose...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Charishma Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are being disposed off by this common order since the issue involved is the same.2. Revenue has field an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the material found as follows:- "I have examined the matter. It is relevant to consider the process of manufacture of the product in question adopted by the appellants. It is stated that the appellants procure extra neutral alcohol which is taken in a mixing vessel and within 10 minutes of time other ingredients like DEP, water, perfume, colour menthol etc. are added together and stirred well and transferred to a chiller for overnight maturation; that next the chiller is started to cool the mixture upto - 8 degrees C to - 5 degree C; that thereafter the mixture is filtered through sparker filter and kept there till it achieves room temperature; that quality control check is done after mixing and after filtration; that DEP was added to alcohol for the purpose of denaturing it and other ingr...

Yakub Bachoo Rukmani and Talab Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT607Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) whereby their vessels were confiscated and order to redeem on payment of redemption fine. As the both appeals involved identical issues, therefore they are being take up together for disposal.2. The facts of the case are that on 14/02/94, the vessel MSV Bahare Tasnim (belonging to Shri Yakub Dachoo Ruknani, the appellant) and the vessel MSV Al-Shama (belonging to Shri Talab Noor Mohammad Juneja) arrived from Dubai at Bombay with manifested cargo of various items.The tindels of vessels Shri Ismail Mamad Sumbhania and Shri Hussain Mohamad Mithani completed the Customs formalities including the filing of private property declaration of the crew members and store list of the vessels. The vessels were searched and on search the dutiable goods such as cosmetic sets, perfumes, textiles, emergency lights and diesel engines were recovered. These items were declared in the private p...

Multimedia Frontiers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT272Tri(Mum.)bai

The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of various kinds of CD-ROM's that the appellant manufactured. It has claimed classification under sub-heading 20 of Heading 85.24 of the tariff. Show cause notice proposed to classify them in subheading 90 of the same heading. The Assistant Commissioner whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), accepted the proposal in the notice demanding duty consequentially required. The Assistant Commissioner's order imposing penalty has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.1. Heading 85.24 and the relevant sub-headings, as this stood at the relevant time, are reproduced below :- Records, tapes and other recorded media for sound or other similarly recorded phenomena, including matrices and masters for the production of records, but excluding products of Chapter 37 2. The reason that the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) advanced for classifying the goods in sub-hea...

Mahindra Sona Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants had already paid the duty, therefore, the application is for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty only. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is being taken up for disposal without asking for any pre-deposit.2. The appellants are only contesting the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The contention of the appellant is that it is a settled law that under Section 11AC, the authority had discretion to impose lesser penalty. Their contention is that the duty was paid even prior to issuance of show cause notice and there was some accounting mistake due to which shortage and excess were found. The appellants are relied upon the decision of CCE, Madurai v. Jkon Engg. (P) Ltd., reported in 2003 (151) ELT 453 (Tri.-Chennai) and in the case of GEA Energy System (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, reported in 2003 (55) RLT 330 (CEGAT-Chennai), to say that where the duty has been paid voluntarily prior to the issuance of show cause notice, t...