Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Pal Peugeot Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memoranda of appeals and heard the departmental representative.2. The issue under consideration in appeal 2849 is whether invoices issued in favour of another person endorsed by that person to appellant is valid for the appellant to take modvat credit under Rule 57G. The appellant relies upon the decision of the Chennai bench of the Tribunal in Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (96) ELT 595 providing that credit can be taken on invoices endorsed before 30.6.94. This decision is no longer good law in the light of the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Balmer Lawrie v. CCE 2000 (116) ELT 364 holding that endorsement were not valid under Rule 57G. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.3. The question for consideration in appeal 2850 is the eligibility for consideration as capital goods under Rule 57Q of certain goods that the appellan...

Kalpataru Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the fabrics that the appellant manufactures. It subjects the cotton grey fabric for process of treatment. During this treatment, a solution consisting of paraffin wax which is the predominant ingredient also includes ochre, lubricating oil and aluminium stearate. It is applied to both sides of the fabric. The appellant has classified these goods in heading 52.07 of the tariff. This heading is for cotton fabrics subjected to industrial process of waterproofing without the aid of steam or power. It is contended that the appellant does not use steam or power in its manufacture. The notice issued to it proposed classification of the goods in heading 58.06, as a fabric otherwise impregnated. The notice relied upon a report of test conducted by the Deputy Chief Chemist at Mumbai which indicated the goods to be composed of canvass cotton fabric heavily impregnated with paraffin wax, earthy matter and inorganic compound...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hewlett Packard (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides. The appellants have imported C8416A H P Office Jet V40 print-tax-copy-scanner invoice value of US $ 150.27 per piece which was also he price indicated in the official price list effective from 03/09/2001. However, the appellants filed Bill of Entry splitting the value as under:- 2. The appellants claimed classification of printers under sub-heading 8471.60 with a basic duty competent of 15% whereas for the Driver software they claimed classification under sub-heading 8524.39 chargeable to nil rate of duty under Sr. No. 285(i) of Notification No.17/2001-cus dtd. 01/03/2001.3. The Assistant Commissioner has ordered the printer and Driver software to be assessed together under sub-heading 8471.60. The Commissioner (Appeals) has, however, reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The present appeal has been filed by the department seeking restoration of the order-in-original on the following grounds:- 1) Printers are sold alongwith software and the pri...

Hindustan Spg. and Weaving Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT189Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal relates to twenty show cause notices issued for the period 1.4.1994 to 1.6.1998. The duty demand confirmed by the lower authorities amounts to Rs. 39,24,324.29. An equal amount of penalty has also been imposed. The issue involved relates to valuation of single yarn captively consumed. The order-in-original adopts the price of yarn sold by the appellants for valuation of captively consumed yarn. This has been confirmed by the impugned order-in-appeal which has also rejected the claim for abatements on account of packaging charges and sale expenses holding that cost data furnished was not in respect of the factory located at Anandrao Nair Road alone.2. The learned advocate for the appellants states that the appellants have submitted cost of captively consumed yarn to the department. He states that no adjustments have been allowed for packaging and selling cost though such costs do not arise in captive consumption. He also states that expenses on sizing and warping etc. ca...

Shri Krishna Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Ajay Sethi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellant has filed the following documents before the lower authorities:- (i) A.R.4 No.: SRGM/R-1/B.47/98-99 dt.23.06.98 proof of export submitted on 20.11.98, received by him on 22 Dec. 1998 along with A.R.4, Bill of Lading dt.30 Jan, 1998, Shipping Bill No : 1050754/26 Jun,98, Invoice No:05 dt.24.6.98, packing list and Commercial Invoice No.:EXP/Y/4/98-99 dt.18.06.98. (ii) A.R.4 No.:SRGM/R-1/B.84/98-99 dt.02.09.98 proof of export submitted on 12.01.99 received by him on 15 Jan. 1999 along with A.R.4, Bill of Lading No:JHTA 07089 dt.04 SEP.1998, Shipping Bill No: 1073882/04 Sept.98, Invoice No.:13/02.09.98, packing list and Commercial Invoice No.:EXP/Y/7/98-99/dated 01.09.98. (iii) Export under A.R.4 No.:SRGM/R-1/B.89/98-99 dt.09.09.98, Invoice No: 1 dt.09.09.98, Commercial Invoice No:Exp/Y/8/98-99 dated 09.09.98 was cancelled due to L.C. got expired and therefore requested to the Assistant Commiss...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. Maharashtra Enterprises,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These six appeals have been filed by the department against the impugned order-in-original dated 23.12.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in pursuance of Board's order in review No. 232-R/97 dated 18.12.1997. The Board has found the following infirmities in the impugned order:- (1) The classification of the old and used compressors as waste and scrap is not correct as it is well established that old and used machinery would merit classification under the same heading applicable to new machinery. (2) The bill of entry for the impugned goods under import was filed in the name of a fictitious firm with fictitious address but the Commissioner has merely confiscated the goods but has not imposed any penalty on any of the persons concerned with filing of the said bill of entry including the CHA.2. Board's review order also observes that the adjudicating Commissioner has made certain remarks against the DRI, the investigating agency which were clearly avoidable.3. No one w...

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides. This appeal arises out of the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 31.10.1997. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a very detailed speaking order and he has come to the finding as follows:- "The appellants being the importers are necessarily to be attributed with the knowledge of Customs law including the aspects of classification of the goods imported by them under the Customs Act. Even otherwise, with their experience in the industry and the trade, they should be deemed to have the knowledge of what they have imported i.e. the imported goods are alloy steel, and that too when the purchase order with them clearly speaks of, the composition of the goods indicating that the goods were alloy steel. Thus the appellants being actual user, industrial should have declared the correct classification in the bill of entry. In terms of the declaration to be given by the importer in the Bill of Entry, the appellan...

Vir Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(161)ELT623Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vir Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of such articles from vulcanized rubber as bushes for use in motor vehicles. It supplied such goods either to manufacturers of motor vehicles for fitment in such vehicles as original equipments or to its own dealers who in turn sold them to their dealers, evidently for use as spares.The goods of the first category, sold to railway equipments manufacturers, manufacturing according to specifications and designs of such buyers, bore on them the name or logo of the buyer. The goods of the second category did not bear any such logo. The assessee paid duty without claiming any exemption with regard to the first category and claimed the benefit of exemption contained in notification 1/1993 and corresponding notifications for the succeeding years. Notices issued to the appellant alleged that the goods supplied to the original equipment manufacturers did not in fact bear on them any brand name. What they contained was such letters...

Usha Electronics Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is classification of and imports which were made by the appellants. After hearing both sides it is found:- (a) The appellants had classified the entity described as 'Image Projectors' imported from Thailand. They were claimed for assessment under heading 9008.30 of the Customs Tariff. The department was however of the view that the entities were spot lights/stage lights equipments classifiable under heading 9405.40 of the Customs Tariff and restricted in terms of Exim Policy 92-97 and were therefore liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importers liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. (b) The Deputy Commissioner who adjudicated the case after considering the submissions of the appellants and after examining the representative samples found that it was noticed that the instrument does not have projection lenses which could be used for projecting an image or its enlarged version onto the desired sur...

Mona Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The issue in this appeal relates to interpretation of Para 2(i) appearing in the small scale exemption Notification No.9/99-CE dtd.28/02/1999. The appellants admittedly availed of the benefit of the said Notification upto 17/08/1999 during the financial year 1999-2000 and thereafter, opted out of the said notification. They claim that after opting out of the exemption notification, they are only required to pay the full rate of duty thereafter. However, by interpreting the aforesaid para 2(i) of the notification, the lower authorities have held that the appellants were not entitled to the exemption from the beginning of the financial year, once they opted out of the notification.2. They hearing rival submissions and perusal of cases records, we find that the exemption under notification No. 9/99 is linked to value of clearances during a financial year. The said exemption is also subject to a number of conditions. One of such conditions in para 2(i) reads as follow...