Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Seva Enterprises Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT464Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeal is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Mumbai. In the said order, the Commissioner had confiscated a consignment of 28,860 Kgs of Pseudoionone valued at Rs. 1,61,86,611/- under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, confirmed duty of Rs. 1,06,30,071/- under Section 28 ibid, and imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 114A ibid, besides demanded interest.2. As the facts of the case enumerated in the order-in-original indicate, the consignment in question, was previously imported in January 1998 by M/s. Seva Enterprises (appellants herein) and warehoused at Nafed warehouse. They transferred the goods in bond to M/s. World Trade Impex, from where the goods were exported to Dubai instead of the original destination, namely: Russia as manifested on the respective shipping Bills. The current import was of the same material, which was abandoned at Dubai by the exporter and was auctioned at Dubai by the Dubai ...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Impressive Computer Systems Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT104Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute relates to classification of "Polaroid Digital Imaging Systems", consisting of PRO palette 8000, HR 6000 (film recorder), Sprintscan 35 scanner and camera back for PPS. The respondents claimed the assessment under Customs tariff heading No. 8471.50 as automatic data processing system, however the assessing authority held (SIC) the said goods as correctly classifiable under tariff heading No. 9006.53 which is applicable to cameras. The reason for fixing the classification under heading No.9006.53 was that, the system performs a more specific function of digital imaging and producing appliances which adapts any computer with SCSI interface. Composite machines are to be classified according to their function. Photography is the main function and not the data processing although the system works in conjunction with ADP.(Automatic Data Processing) The assessment order does m...

Gordhandas Desai Ltd., Shri M.N. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC207

1. The appellants are an assessee under the Central Excise Act and a Director and authorized signatory.2. The assessee is engaged in production and clearance of excisable goods, namely, Laboratory Furniture falling under Chapter 94 and Fume Hood Chambers, etc., falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. Prior to 1.4.2000, they opted for MODVAT Credit Scheme and availed the same. With effect from 1.4.2000, they opted for the CENVAT Credit Scheme.4. For convenience of transportation and to prevent damage to finished excisable goods, produced in the assessee's factory, the same are cleared in unassembled form and on reaching the site of the buyers premises, the consignments are opened and the components are installed/erected at site. Duty at the time of removal from the assessee's factory is paid on the appropriate value of the excisable goods as applicable, but erection/installation charges are not included in such assessable value.5. The ma...

Parshuram Steel Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT31Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellants were rightly asked to make the payment of Rs. 11,57.958/- in terms of the order-in-original No. 18/CEX/1989 dated 31/08/89 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellants were required to make the payment of said amount through debit in the PLA or through TR-6 challan. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that in the event the appellants makes such a payment, then the amount paid by debit through RG-23A Part-II account should be restored by credit.Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the debit made in RG-23A Part-II account as the legitimate payment. The appellants further claimed that having made the debit in the RG-23A Part-II account, the demands stands paid.3. Demand in question arose i...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents were allowed to follow the provisional assessment procedure vide letter dated 12-1-1998 in which they were directed to pay the service tax provisionally and to file details of the service tax payable on monthly basis. The respondents intimated on 28-5-1998 that through oversight they did not pay the service tax to the full extent. The service tax payable by them was Rs. 13,147/-, which they paid subsequently along with interest of Rs. 445/-. The Department found that the respondent did not apply the correct rate of interest which calculating the interest liability. A differential interest of Rs. 890/- became payable. Further it was noticed that for the period July 1997 to December 1997 the Respondents paid the service tax on 22-1-1998. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and observed that interest under Sect...

Pareshkumar Hirji Bhadra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Briefly the facts are that the Central Excise Officers intercepted a Tempo bearing Registration No. Mh-04-S-3050 loaded that 152 bags of LLDPE granules of Indonesian origin on 5.1.99. Investigation revealed that consignee's address mentioned in the invoice tendered by the driver of the vehicle was bogus and the quantity shown in the invoice was different than that of the one physically found. The driver of the vehicle was interrogated. In his statement be confessed that as per the direction of the owner of the Tempo he had gone to M/s. Prestige Transport, Bhiwandi on 5.1.99 and handed over One Rupee Currency Note given to him by the owner of the person sitting in the above said transport company, who thereupon given him delivery of 152 bags of the said granules. Shri P.H. Bhadra the present appellant is the owner of the vehicle above said. He admitted that as per the instructions received from one Shri Sanjay Chheda he asked his driver to go with the vehicle to the transport compan...

Commissioner of Customs (Acc) Vs. Procol Electronics India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT114Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of CCE (Appeals), findings arrived to the effect - "The issue is whether the imported components can be considered a complete calculator by virtue of Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules. I would like to refer to circular No. 44 87 dated 30.09.97 issued by the Department of Revenue. The issue dealt within the above circular is identical to the issue, in the present case. Page 5 & 7 of the above circular reads this: In the instant case, neither of the two conditions is fulfilled. Firstly the components are subjected to further manufacturing process. These process are electronic cleaning, cutting and bending of components, mounting components on PCB, affixing of connectors, penalty, testing etc. The components are therefore in a semi finished state only. Further nature of various processes are much more versatile then simple assembly operations. The impugned goods therefore, may not be considered to have acquired the essential elaborator of the...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mehta Pharmaceutical Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT26Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents manufacture bulk drugs/chemicals falling under Chapter No. 28 & 29 of CETA 1985. It all started with the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 3,24,990/- by the Assistant Commissioner. The matter travelled upto the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its Order No. C-I/900/2002-WZB, dated 26-3-2002 set aside the order of the lower appellate authority except to the extent of Rs. 2623/-. The appellant claimed the consequential refund. It was sanctioned. The appellant thereupon claimed refund of interest on the amount paid by him. This was denied by the lower original authority. In appeal, the Commissioner (A) held that the claim for refund of interest has to be sanctioned. He set aside the lower authority's order. Now the Revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.3. The Revenue's grounds are that the respondents should not have paid the interest by deb...

Godrej Soaps and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT25Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The referral bench doubted the correctness of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Alcobex Metals (P) Ltd. reported in 1992 (58) ELT. 108 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that as a consequence of the show cause notice being held to be without jurisdiction for the purposes of demand of duty, having been issued by an officer other than the Commissioner, under the proviso to Section 11-A, the entire proceedings for other purposes of imposition of penalty and confiscation would also be without jurisdiction. The referral Bench was of the view that a combined notice having been issued under two different provisions of law for recovery of duty under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and for confiscation and levy of penalty under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of Central Excise Act, 1944, even though part of the notice has been issued without jurisdiction, the other part could survive having been issued by an officer having jurisdicti...

J.R. Fabricators Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT445Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara. The Commissioner in the impugned order reviewed the order of the lower authority under the review powers conferred on him under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1944. The issue involved in liability of the service receiver who received goods transport services to pay service tax in view of the retrospective amendment carried out in the Finance Act, 2000 under Section 117. This section envisaged that notwithstanding any thing contained in any judgment, decree order of any court, Tribunal or other authority sub-clause(xii) & (xiii) of clause (d) of Sub-Rule (1) of rule 2 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules 1998 shall be deemed to be valid as if the said Sub-clause had been in forced at all material times. The Commissioner reviewed the order of the lower authority who dropped proceedings in view of the Supreme Court's decisio...