Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cosmic Dyes and Intermediate Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The revenue's appeal is directed against the order in appeal passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) had set aside the Order in Original and allowed the appeal of the appellants.In the appeal, the appellants requested for refund claim of Rs. 1,00,571/- as a consequential relief arising out of Order in Appeal 406 to 416/97 dated 7.7.1997. The adjudicating authority vide the order impugned had rejected the said refund on the grounds that initial demand was confirmed by the AC for Rs. 100571/- against the appellants and at that time 2 refunds for Rs. 47000/- and Rs. 26964/- were sanctioned to the appellants which were adjusted against the demand for Rs. 100571/- and the balance Rs. 26,607/-was debited by the appellant vide RG23A part II on 31.1.1997. The adjudicating authority held that the appellants have not filed any protest against the adjustment of refund claim towards demand, therefore that part of refund is time barred. As regard balance of Rs. 26,60...

Bee-am Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT534Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are engaged in the blending of raw materials like benzene, toluene, methanol with MTO etc and selling the resultant product, under brand names classifiable them under Chapter Heading 2710.90, for which the necessary declaration under the Central Excise law was filed. In October 1998, the departmental officers visited the premises and drew samples. The test results of these samples was not provided to the appellants or used adversely against them. The RT12 Returns filed for clearance under Heading 2710.90 were duly assessed.In July 1999, fresh samples were sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist for his opinion and who opined that the products under question are classifiable under Chapter Heading 38.14. On 4.2.2002 a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding duty for the period June 1998 to March 1999 invoking the larger period of limitation and alleging suppression of facts and misdeclarations. No demand of duty for the period March 1999 to July 1999 was made in these proceedi...

Tetrapack India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT647Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of laminated paper falling under Chapter 76 of the CTA and avail modvat credit on the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. The appellants had availed modvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Garware Polyester P. Ltd., West Coast Paper Mills through their consignment agents namely 1.2 The invoices contained the names of the consignment agents as the goods were purchased through the agents. However, the appellants name as "Account Hindustan Packaging Company Ltd. Paper Laminated Plant" was subsequently incorporated.2. The claim for modvat was rejected on the ground that, the credit has been taken on the invoices which are not in the name of the appellant, but were in the name of some other dealer whose name was appearing in the computer generated invoice of the manufacturer, which were subsequently corrected to incorporate the name of the appellants.Therefore it was alleged that, the names were ...

Raymond Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. M/s.Raymond Ltd., had deposited under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act certain amounts, which they had collected in excess from their customers. But these deposits were made after a period of time from the dates of recovery from the customers. The department wanted to levy interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, on these amounts and accordingly show cause notice was issued to the party. In adjudication of the demand of interest, the Assistant Commissioner directed the party to deposit an amount of over Rs. 49 lakhs as interest under Section 11AB. The aggrieved party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and latter passed an order holding that, for the period from 28/09/96, the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 11AB. Against the decision of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before us pleading that no interest whatsoever is recoverable under Section 11AB on an amount deposited with the Government under Section 11D. They...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sarabhai Glass Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue's appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is noted from the facts of the case that the appellant manufactured steam falling under Chapter no. 28 of the Central Excise Tariff and cleared the same on payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 184,684.60 for the period from 27.8.97 to 24.9.1997.The appellants realised that the said duty was not payable since the same was exempt from excise duty. Secondly they filed a refund claim before the Asst. Commissioner, claiming that duty collected from the customers has been compensated by issue of credit notes to the customers. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim saying that issue of credit note to the customers does not overcome the clause of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) however disagreed with the finding of the Asst. Commissioner and allowed the claim. The instant appeal of the revenue challenges the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).3. The revenue has cited t...

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 On 28.01.1992 the appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 325 for the import of Metallurgical coke which was provisionally assessed based on provisional invoice dt. 08.01.1992 and duties were paid on 31.01.1992.On 12.03.1992 the final price for the quantity of Metallurgical coke imported vide Bill of Entry dt. 28.01.1992 was reduced to US $ 18,83,127.19 instead of provisional price of US $ 19,13,151.78. Such reduction resulted in excess payment of customs duty of Rs. 11,67,742/-.1.2 On 03.02.1993 the appellants filed representation to the Asstt.Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Kandla for finalisation of the assessment of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry dt. 22.01.1992 based on the final invoice of the supplier followed by another representation dt. 07.04.1993. A telegram dt. 11.01.1995 was issued to the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Kandla for finalisation of the assessment of the goods in question. On 27.06.1995 and 24.08.1995 the appellant's clearing agen...

Jay Monofilaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT238Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to exemption contained in entry 119 of the table to notification 5/98 and similarly worded entries in other notifications manufactured by the appellant. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held that the goods would not be entitled to be exemption, demanded duty consequently payable on the yarn cleared in terms if the exemption and imposed penalties on the manufacturer and on Pankaj Rungta, its director Hence these appeals.2 The entries in the notifications are identically worded. We will consider, for the discussion, entry 119 of the table to notification 5/98. This exempts from duty nylon monofilament yarn falling in chapter heading 5404.10 of denierage 210,330,420,630,840,1050 or 1680, with tolerance of 4 per cent. Notice issued to be appellant proposed to deny the exemption on two grounds , firstly that the goods were not nylon monofilament yarn, and secondly that they were not of the den...

K. Prashant Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT201Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are traders in articles of apparels and other items and traded the apparels in the brand name 'Cambridge'. They got these garment manufactured from other manufacturers on job-work basis by supplying the fabrics, labels, packing materials etc. The fully packed ready for marketing garments are brought to the godown premises of the appellants from where the goods are dispatched to various customers.The garments traded by the appellants are classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 6201.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and prior to 01.03.2001, the tariff rate on the goods was "Nil" by the Finance Bills of 2001. This rate was amended to 16% advalorem.2. Consequent to the Finance Bill effective from 01.03.2001, Officers of Central Excise visited the godown of these traders in the Bombay Market. They undertook a detailed inventory of the finished ready to market garments lying there. These garments were found to be liable for duty by the officers, since they were bearing a register...

Forever Living, Health, Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT290Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue in these two appeals is the classification of Aloevera Nector and Aloe bits and peaches.2. After hearing both sides, and considering the issue, it is found that : (a) what is the entity under dispute of classification and how it is emerging in the premises of the manufacturer along with detailed manufacturing process has to be brought on record. Since it is well settled law that first the entity under classification consideration has to be established and thereafter suitable heading is to be determined for it; the learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the findings and the submissions made that this aspect has not been appreciated and the facts as recorded are now required to be redetermined and for this purpose, the appellants are also required to place affidavits on record as regards the exact nature of the products under classification dispute and how it was considered by the persons who are dealing in them and also how the products come into existenc...

Raju Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.9.2000, the Customs Officers intercepted a Tempo loaded with 188 Cartons weighing 4512 kgs of imported mono filament yarn of 100% polyester at Surat. Based on investigation and statement, show cause notice dated 28.2.01 was issued alleging that the said goods which had been imported duty free by the appellants for use in the manufacture of their export articles were admitted to be diverted in the local market. The notice proposed recovery of duty of Rs. 4,23,554/- in addition to confiscation and penalty, and the notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad who confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, confirmed demand as raised in the notice and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The lower Appellate authority upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal.2. I have heard both sides. The preliminary objection raised by the ld.Coun for the appellants is that the show cau...