Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Shiv Marine Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for stay arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 7.8.2003. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellants' appeal for non-compliance of stay order passed by him directing the applicants to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs out of the total duty demanded in the order-in-original. A hearing was fixed on 23.7.2003 by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the condition that the appellants deposit the said amount by that date. The applicants did not comply with the stay order, instead made an application dated 23.7.2003 for withdrawal of their appeal. But they still appeared for a personal hearing before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 29.7.2003. The issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) was whether duty on excess bunkers, ship stores, movable gears, provisions etc. should be separately assessed under appropriate heading of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) having heard the ap...

Central India Polyesters Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC411Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty as the issue in dispute stands covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal in the appellants' own case.2. The appellants herein, who are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of, polyester filament yarn, were issued two Value Based Advanced Licences (hereinafter referred to as VBAL) dated 10/08/1992 and 19/10/1992 permitting duty free import of the following items.3. The export obligation cast upon the appellants under these licences was fulfilled and necessary evidence to this effect was also produced before the customs authorities, who after due verification logged the exports in the DEEC pass book and based upon such logging, the Letter of Undertaking furnished to the licensing authority was cancelled and discharged. On 26/02/1996 Central Excise officers of the preventive unit of Nagpur visited the appellants factory and directed them to reverse an amount of Rs. 1,17,...

Gangapur S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC679Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared for the appellants. Heard the DR. The short issue to be decided in this case is the eligibility of Modvat credit on gunny bags under Rule 57(A) and on Cane Carrier and Bagasse Carrier Chain under Rule 57Q.2. The lower authorities have denied credit on gunny bags classifiable under Chapter 63, which was not declared as an eligible chapter for input credit at the relevant time. Since inputs classifiable under Chapter 63 was not eligible inputs under Rule 57A, therefore, the denial of Modvat credit on gunny bags is upheld.3. The denial of Modvat credit on the other two items, under Rule 57Q has been denied on the ground that they are material handling equipment and the Baggase Carrier Chain is the same used in the manufacture of exempted products because from the sugarcane used in this Sugar manufacturers premises baggase results which is exempted.4. Since the items are essential for handling Sugarcane, removal of unusable parts of Sugar Cane, viz., Baggase, and Sugarcan...

Shyam Bihani, Sujala Exports, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present applications are for modification of stay order No.C-I/1263-67/WZB/2003 dated 13.6.2003 by which M/s. Sujala Exports was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore out of the total demand and the other applicants who are partners of M/s. Sujala Exports were directed to deposit 25% of the penalty imposed upon them by the adjudicating authority.2. As far as M/s. Sujala Exports is concerned, the grounds for seeking modification are that, although financial hardship was pleaded in the stay application and during the hearing thereof, particularly the plea that the unit has been closed since March 2001, this does not appear to have been noted by the bench while directing the pre-deposit. The other plea raised is that the documents relied upon in the show cause notice were not supplied to the applicants and lastly they submit that the goods seized and available with the department are to the value of over Rs. 1.21 crores and not Rs. 97 lakhs as noted in paragraph 2 of the stay o...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC157Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) denying therein capital goods credit under Rule 57Q on: i) Environmental Test Chamber required for carrying out various test on parts/components/products as per national./international specification to ensure the quality. ii) Housing Plunger, which is a part of forklifts truck used for material handling.On the grounds that the item at Section No. (i) supra and the forklift are not articles used in or in relation to the manufacture/production and processing of any goods or bringing about any deny in any substance for the manufacture of the same products.2. I find there is force in the submission of the appellants that it is for the user to determine whether an item qualifies or not the requirements of Clause (2). Explanation I to Rule 57Q as held by the Apex Court the case of CCB, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and Ors.2001 (45) RLT 739 (SC) wherein in para 6 it has been held: We have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the...

Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. is a texturising unit at Tarapur, but is being run by M/s. Pushpa International at the material time. In the impugned order, the Commissioner ordered recovery of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 28,69,574.25 (BED) from M/s. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. and M/s. Pushpa International under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the first named and another Rs. 20,000/- on the second under Rule 173Q(1) and/or 9(2) and/or 52A and/or 210 ibid. The learned Commissioner also confiscated 4492.070 kgs. of texturised dyed yarn, 1550 kgs. of texturised yarn, 126.020 kgs of defective yarn and 4604.250 kgs. of POY lying in the factory of the appellants. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants came in appeal along with a stay application. The stay application was earlier disposed of dispensing with the pre-deposit of duties and penalties. The main appeal is now ta...

Darshan Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT345Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the denial by the Asst. Commissioner of the modvat credit taken by the appellant on the ground that the invoice on which credit was taken were issued by the manufacturer of the inputs, not to the appellant but to other persons who in turn endorsed them to the appellant.2. The representative of the appellant contends that, while simultaneously in addition to endorsing the invoice of the manufacturer that they received, the dealers of the manufacturer who sent the goods to the appellant also issued separate invoice and credit is invalidly taken of these invoices.3. After considering the invoice in question I am unable to accept the submission. The five manufacturers invoice of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd., Surat were issued on different dates on 8^th, 16^th and 27^th April 1994 to dealers Shejanan Textiles, Dhanlaxmi Textiles and Shubhlaxmi Textiles all at Surat. These partners of these firms have endorsed the ...

Sujala Exports, Shyam Bihani, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Arguing on the applications for modification of stay order No.C-I/1259-62/WZB/2003 dated 13.6.2003, Shri V.M. Doiphode, learned advocate, submits that, although the applicants had raised the plea of financial hardship based upon the fact of closure of the unit since March 2001, and such plea was raised during the hearing of the stay application, it appears to have been lost sight of while passing the stay order directing pre-deposit of 50% of the penalties imposed upon the unit by the adjudicating authority. He also raises the plea that the penalties confirmed in the present order are covered by the adjudication order of the Commissioner in other cases. Regarding the remaining applicants, out of whom two are partners of M/s. Sujala Exports and the other applicant is alleged to have helped M/s. Sujala Exports in disposing of the goods, he reiterates the contents of the miscellaneous applications.2. The prayer for modification is opposed by learned DR who submits that all pleas inclu...

i.G.E. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT388Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common question for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods described as "tube assembly" imported by the appellant would be cleared without a production of import licence. In the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Dy./Asst. Commissioner that goods being consumer goods a licence for their import was required. Hence these appeals.2. The goods which are the subject matter of appeal C/50/98 were shipped in 30.6.1995 by their consignor from Dhaman in Saudi Arabia when arrived at Mumbai in 12.7.1995. The goods which are the subject matter of appeal C/49/95 were shipped on 24.7.95 and arrived on 4.8.95, A circular 55/92/95 dated 18.7.95 of the Directorate of the Foreign Trade provided that inter alia packing or packaging bottles cannot be imported except against an import licence. The counsel for the appellant explains that the goods were imported for packing industrial sealant. The goods covered by appeal 49/98 were...

Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC1054Tri(Mum.)bai

(i) Seamens starter used for the purpose of starting AC. Motor used for colouring machine blower, sheathing machine wiper blower, etc., in the factory, (iii) Counter meter used for counting length of the product emerging (optical cables).The denial has been made for item at Sl. Nos. (i) (ii) and (iii) above on the ground that they are not used for providing/manufacturing, processing or bringing out a change in any substance for manufacture of goods and steel drums are in nature of packing material.2. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, it is found :- (a) The credit on all items cannot be denied in the grounds as arrived at in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Jawthar Mills (b) As regards item at S. No. (iii), the counter meter is integral to the manufacture of optical cables manufactured in running length in kilometres. (c) The steel drums are not packing material but store the standard cases which are to be unsheathed to make a ...