Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

20 Microns and Shri C.S. Parikh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This case was argued at length by Shri J.C. Patel, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt.C.D.R. & Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue.The main issue in this case is whether the extended period of limitation is applicable on the ground of suppression and mis-declaration. The Show Cause Notice for duty demand was issued in this case on 31/12/1999 for the period December 1994 to 15/07/1999. It is the case of the appellants that they have been filing declarations from time to time and therefore, the allegation of suppression cannot be sustained. It is also their contention that it was their belief that the goods manufactured by them were not excisable and the declaration made on that basis cannot be taken as mis-declaration. The learned Jt.C.D.R. & S.D.R. on the other hand argue that no classification list or price list etc. were filed under Rule 173B and 173C and that it is not sufficient to file a declaration ...

Bayer Abs Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are availing modvat credit on imported items/goods, which were inputs, having been received on gate passes/delivery challans prepared and issued by their depot at Kandla and/or weighment slips issued by the surveyors at Kandla, the port of import being Kandla and also the lorry receipt issued by the various transporters for transportation of the inputs to the factory at Vadodara District.They were also maintaining quality records/report issued by their own transporters from time to time. A show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the credit on certain quantities of inputs which were alleged to be not in conformity with the dip measurement of storage tank, differences between the initial dip and the final dip at the time of analysing the tanker lorry tanker in the factory / storage tanks that was considered. Based on the these differences in the dip measurement and the actual quantity, the credit taken, a demand was made to reverse modvat credit on certain alleg...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. General Pharma Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC723

1. The case was argued at length by Shri M.K. Gupta, learned J.C.D.R.and Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate for the appellants. There are two appeals. We take up the appeal (No. E/785/02) filed by the department first. This appeal is against the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that interest under Section 11AB is not leviable prior to 28.09.1996. The learned counsel submits that Board has issued a circular subsequently on 26.06.2002 clarifying that interest under Section 11AB is not chargeable prior to the period 28.09.1996. In view of the Board's Circular, we do not find any merit in the department's appeal (E/785/02) and we dismiss the same.2. Now we take up the appeal (No. E/705/02) filed by M/s. General Pharma Ltd. The issue involves interpretation of paragraph 4 of the small scale exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993. The said paragraph 4 reads as under:- "The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name o...

Telco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT621Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein had imported Epple 37 Sealant and Thinner in August 1996. The goods were treated as consumer goods and in the absence of specific import licence valid for such items in the Negative List in the Exim Policy, 1992-97, the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine in addition to duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority; hence this appeal by the importer.2. I have heard both sides. The goods are used for industrial application in the vehicle factory of the importer in the manufacture of Heavy Duty Engines and Turbines. The imported goods are Heat Resisting Sealing Compound along with Thinner which offers high resistance against hot oils and hot cooling liquid due to novel raw materials. The claim of the appellants is that they are appropriately classified under Customs Tariff Heading 38.14 allowed under Free Import category and are not consumer goods as they do not ...

Shakti Plastic and Rubber Works Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT322Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in the order impugned before him that the dust tubes "for two wheelers and to motor vehicles and for use in the railways and F. V. caps for electrical appliances" were classifiable in Heading 85.86 of the Central Excise Tariff and not in Heading 3924.90 as claimed by the appellant, demanding duty on the clearance of the goods and imposed penalty.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and heard the departmental representative.3. The Assistant Commissioner had adjudicated upon a notice dated 16-11-1995 issued to the appellant, proposing recovery of differential duty on goods cleared between July, 1991 and April, 1993. A copy of the notice has not been produced but it would be clear that it would have invoked the extended period of limitation. The appellant had, in the classification list that it...

Eskay Narrow Fabrics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This case was argued on 16.10.2002, 30.01.2003 and then to 13.03.2003. The issue involved is classification of Ultrasonic Lace Sewing Machine. The appellants claim classification under sub-heading 8452.29 which was accepted by the group Assistant Commissioner vide the impugned order-in-original. However, on department's appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has changed the classification to the residual heading No. 84.79 in the impugned order-in-appeal. The present appeal is against the said order-in-appeal. We extract below the operative portion of the impugned order-in-appeal:- "The catalogue of M/s. Evergreen Ultrasonic Ltd., Taiwan for Model ECR 053 describes the machine as Ultrasonic Lace Machine and it states that the machine is capable of welding and cutting in a continuous curve line as well as straight line. The machine eliminates the problems associated with needles, threads and bobbins of conventional sewing machine. The machines are having multi functions to cut, weld, seam...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Toshniwal Instruments

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In these cases the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise had passed 14 Orders-in-Original on the same issue, rejecting 14 refund claims filed by the assessees/respondents, against which appeals were preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by a common order, set aside the adjudication orders and held that the assessees were eligible to refund. The Revenue initially filed one joint appeal against the impugned order within the statutory period of limitation; subsequently they were directed to file supplementary appeals along with applications for COD which have been made.2. Since the original appeal was a joint appeal, I condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals.4. Now I take up the appeals for hearing. The assessees had originally cleared conductivity meters under invoices on payment of duty for exhibition to customers and the machines were brought back to the factory after demonstration and declarations under Rule 173L were filed. The machines were reconditioned a...

Todi Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC368

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the appellant was not entitled to discounts that it claimed in respect of the rubber solution that it manufactured and cleared.3. The duty was demanded from the appellant by means of nine notices for clearances made between November 1989 and June 1991. The Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty on the ground that the deduction claimed by the appellant from its sale price had been disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner in two orders dated 29.5.1990 and 25.2.1991. He has noted that the appellant had not produced any material to show that these orders have been set aside.4. On being asked, Mr. Babulal Todi, Director of the appellant, accepts that he is not in a position to say whether these orders have been set aside or not. He says that there is some indication that the appeal has been filed against one of these orders, but is not able to say any...

Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Customs of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC321Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The basic issue in this case is interpretation of notification No. 2/95-CE dated 04-01-1995 as amended and computation of the duty liability thereunder. The period involved is 01.01.2000 to 28.02.2000.2. Notification No. 2/95 was amended by Notification No. 38/99-CE dated 16.09.1999. After this amendment, the notification exempted the impugned goods from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act as in excess of amount calculated at the rate 50% of each of the duty of customs, which would be levied under the Customs Act, 1962 or under any other law for the time being in force on like goods imported into India. Section 3 of the Central Excise Act was also amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2000.The amended provision is extracted below:- "Provided that the duties of excise which shall be levied and collected on any excisable goods which are produced or manufactured,- (i) in a free trade zone or a special economic zo...

Kanubhai Engineers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR448; 2003LC1042(Bombay); 2003(158)ELT571(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this unusual case, the machinery imported by the Petitioner on being found to be defective was re-exported within the warranty period and the foreign supplier replaced the defective machinery by a new one, but the Petitioner was required to pay customs duty twice, one at the time of first clearance and another at the time of clearance of the replaced machinery. As the Customs authorities declined to entertain the refund application filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act and have also rejected duty drawback claimed under Section 74 of the Customs Act, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition.2. The facts relevant for the present petition are that on 10th February, 1987 the Petitioner imported a Crankshaft machine from Germany and cleared the same on payment of duty of Rs. 2,27,871/-. Thereafter, the said Crankshaft, was found to be defective and the foreign supplier agreed to take back the machine and substitute it by a new one. ...