Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Ghanshyam Dyg. and Ptg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC345

1. The prayer in the application is for condoning the delay of 1576 days in filing the present appeal against an order of the Commissioner fixing annual production capacity of the appellant's unit.2. Shri Vishal Agarwal, learned C.A. appearing for the appellants submits that said appeal has been filed against an order passed on 23.9.99 by the Commissioner vide which he has fixed annual capacity of their unit by taking into account the length of their galleries. He submits that thereafter they were not paying duty in accordance with annual capacity so fixed by the Commissioner, when their range Superintendent directed them to pay the differential amount vide his order dated 28.2.2000. Accordingly they deposited the amount under protest. Subsequently they claimed refund of the same vide their letter dated 26.12.2000. The said refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 28.3.2001 on the ground that the original order of Commissioner fixing the...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Shilpi Prints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai

1, This is a revenue appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the impugned order-in-appeal the order-in-original demanding duty of Rs. 8,64,409/- was set aside. The demand was confirmed against the respondents on the ground that they had procured intermediate goods namely, POY/PFY from 100% EOU for converting the same into finished product for export. POY/PFY was cleared from the premises of the respondents in terms of procedure prescribed under Notification No. 49/94(NT) dated 22/09/94 Without payment of duty. It was alleged that, the said procedure is applicable to the manufacturer of the resultant export/product, which was processed fabrics. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the respondents were not the manufacturer of processed fabrics, and only the processed fabrics] was permitted to remove the intermediate product, used for making the processed fabrics without payment of duty in terms of the said notification. Consequently...

Pressure Sensitive Systems (i) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT445Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The miscellaneous application is for rectification of Order No.C-II/185-86/WZB/2003, dated 23-1-2003 [2003 (160) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal)] passed by the Tribunal vide which personal penalty of Rs. 60,000/- was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- while confirming the reversal of Modvat credit of Additional duty paid under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 which was utilised for payment of basic excise duty while clearing the final product.2. The mistake pointed out is that no order has been passed on the point of interest confirmation, which the appellant have challenged on the ground that the provisions of Section 11AB came into effect from 28-9-1996 and the period covered is August, 1994 to December, 1996.After perusing the order of the Tribunal, we find that no orders have been passed on the interest part. Accordingly, we allow the application and proceed to decide the said issue, by including Para 6 in the said order. "(6) As regards interest, the appellant's ...

Vaishali Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides, duly represented by Shri Mayur Shroff, Ld.Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.K. Chandan, Ld. JDR for the Revenue. We find that, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim of the appellants on the ground that the same has been claimed without challenging the orders pertaining to determination of annual capacity of hot air stenter chamber, which includes the portion of gallery and panel patties. Shri Mayur Shroff submits that, the above reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority is factually incorrect in as much as, order fixing the production capacity as well as the matter of refund was heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the same day, who rejected the same. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal (relating to capacity determination), who vide its order dated 12/12/2003 remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh decision in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of CCE, Jaipur-II v. SPBL Ltd., report...

Sunflex Auto Parts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT188Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the matter was called no one appears for the appellant the matter is pending since 1999 therefore we proceed to decide the matter after considering the material on record and hearing the Jt. CDR.2. It is found that the issue involved in this case is classification of certain parts made out of rubber and metal bonded together which were being manufactured and supplied to the Indian Railways as per the specifications use by the Indian Railway. They were supplied under Heading 8607.00. (a)A new management with new partners has taken over the firm from April 1996, and when they received the impugned show cause notice for the metal bonded parts manufactured and supplied Indian Railways they filed a no-objection letter to classify their products under Heading 8607.00. (b)Later on they realized their mistake and therefore contested the classification on merits. Since the use of the subject goods is in all axle assembly. This rubber metal silent block is common to absorb jerk and nois...

Colour Chem Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT386Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty of Rs. 51,65,752/- and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs demanded in the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner.2. The issue relates to the levy of duty on "lumps and extrudes" which are the intermediate products used in the manufacture of finished products i.e. textile dyes. The appellants are pleading that, they have a strong prima facie case on merits and request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the entire duty and penalty.4. It has been argued by the Counsel that even if it is considered that, the department has a case of under valuation of the goods, consequently the duty that would be paid would be eligible to be taken as modvat credit for discharging the duty on the finished products made from such intermediate goods and cleared from the factory. The appellants have claimed that the duty has been paid on the final products through PLA also, and the finished goods price is not ...

Advanced Technology Devices and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, who has ordered confiscation of 107 computer systems imported by M/s. Advance Technology Devices, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as ATD) under Bill of Entry dated 30/08/1994 under the provisions of Section 111 (a), (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs together with duty of Rs. 25,28,660/- by applying the rate of duty in respect of DTA clearance made from FTZ prevalent on the date of clearance from FTZ under Section 15(1)(c) and imposed the following amounts of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the persons mentioned below: 3. Shri Raghavendran, employee of Rs. 2,00,000/- ATD 8. Shri C. Dilip Kumar, employee of Rs. 10,000/- Crompton Greaves Ltd. 2. The facts relevant for appreciation of the issue in dispute are that on 12/09/1994 officers of the Marine and Preventive, wing of the Customs, Bombay detained...

R.K. Patel and Company Tobacco Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC486

1. Vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, duty of Rs. 3,81,200 has been confirmed against the appellants on the unbranded chewing tobacco. Shri S.P. Mathew, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants does not dispute the above duty liability and admite that the same was required to be paid by them. He also submits that the entire duty has since been paid by the appellants in terms of the stay order passed by the Tribunal, However, he submits that the appellant is entitled to said duty to be taken as modvat credit by him. As such, by drawing our attention to the Tribunal Order in the case of R.K. Patel Tobacco Trading Co. being Order No. CI/2685, 2686/WZB/2003 vide which the modvat credit facility of the duty paid on the unbranded chewing tobacco was extended, it was pleaded to grant similar benefit in this case also.2. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Ld. JDR appearing for the respondents submits that, the only dispute before the Commissioner was the duty liability of the appellant and he had not exami...

Shivanath Bhojane and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC489

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the issue involved is suspension of the CHA Licence which would involve and result on the unemployment of many people employed by the firm, early hearing application is granted. The matter taken up for decision, after hearing both side.2. Consequent to a report of intimation of gross misdeeds and violation of CHA regulations by M/s. Shivnath Bhojane & Sons, Mumbai CHA 11/660 received by letter dt. 15.4.04 for Jt. Director DRI, Mumbai, who had investigated a case of fraudulent availment of drawback/DEPB against different exporters during the period 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01 by mis-declaring the value of the goods, wherein it was learnt that the partner of this CHA licensee admitted that he was offered an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month which was subsequently increase, as a consideration for allowing on one Shri Ujjainwala to use his CHA licence by showing Shri Ujjainwala employee the said firm clearance of export garments were made....

Export Trade Corporation Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT489Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arose out of common order passed by Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. In the impugned order the Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 35 lakhs on M/s. Export Trade Corporation Ltd., Hong Kong, by ordering enforcement of a provisional release bond supported by a bank guarantee. He held that the vessel in question i.e. MT Millennium and furnace oil carried by it, both of which were subsequently released provisionally are liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and (m) of the Customs Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s Export Trade Corporation Ltd., a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on Sanjeev Jain and Sher Singh Saklani, the broker and the captain of the vessel respectively, and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/. Delta Marine Services under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Hence these appeals.2. Briefly the facts are M/s. Delta Marine Services are local agents of the ship in question. They informed the Jamnagar Customs that the ship intended to arrive at ...