Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Air Works Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment declared as radio equipment (aircraft parts) valued at Rs. 1,09,39,029/- CIF and sought clearance of the same against camel No. US 39806106. The goods were meant for demonstration of functioning of various instruments in aeroplane cockpit during training sessions. The importer could not submit India Trade Promotion Organisation certificate as required under notification 157/90-Cus dated 28.3.1990, hence the subject consignment was not allowed clearance duty free. The imported goods were required for a training session to be held from May 4^th to 8^th 1998. Since the imported goods could not be cleared for the want of the certificate as mentioned above the importer requested for permission to re-export the same. On perusal of the document the department noted that the items under import form a complete radio navigational system falling under sub heading 8526.91 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and are restricted for import under the import policy t...

Ceat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT442Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The authorities below have rejected the appellants claim for refund of duty of Rs. 1,58,665/- paid on tyres, tubes and flaps falling under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985 during the period from June to September, 1992, on the ground that the bar of unjust enrichment operates against them as they have passed on the duty burden to their customers. While the claim has been sanctioned on merits the amount has been directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. The appellants seek decision on merits. Hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the only ground on which the appellants state that they have not passed on the duty burden to their customers is that the throughout the price charged by them remained the same before and after the variation in the rate of duty from Rs. 265/- per tyre to Rs. 475/- per tyre. However, as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) this is only a presumption and the appellants were required to produce evide...

Ruby Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,11,229/-. The claim was held not admissible under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The refund was claimed on the ground that no excise duty was payable on the yarn by including the weight of the sizing material. The submission was that though the yarn was cleared on payment of duty after sizing, only the pre-sized weight was required to be considered.2. The lower authorities did not dispute the claim on merits. The claim was rejected on the ground that the appellants did not produce any evidence to satisfy that the duty incidence on the said yarn was not passed on to the customers directly or indirectly. The appellants claimed that since the duty was paid under protest the provisions of Section 11B do not apply, meaning thereby that, unjust enrichment clause also will not apply. The Commissi...

Bhavya Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Harish Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the order No. S/504 to 506/WZB/2004/C-I dated 14/01/2004 pre-deposit of Rs. 3 crores by M/s. Bhavya Apparels, Rs. 20 lakhs by Shri R.C. Agarwal, Director of the Company and Rs. 10 lakhs by Shri H.R. Agarwal, Power of Attorney holder of the company, was directed.Against this order the matter was posted for compliance on 26/04/2004.However, 26/04/2004 was a holiday due to election in Bombay, therefore the matter was posted on 12/05/2004 and adjourned to today. We find from the record that against pre-deposit direction, M/s. Bhavya Apparels moved the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad by filing Special Civil Application No. 5523 of 2004 and vide order dated 03/05/2004 the High Court passed the order, relevant extracts from which are reproduced below: "3. Mr. Paresh Dave for the petitioners states that the Tribunal has imposed the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 3 crores on the basis that the petitioners duty liability is 16 crores and odd, though in fact it is only Rs. 8.69 ...

Diamond Crucibles Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants were issued a show cause notice alleging non-accountal of 763 pieces of graphite crucibles, which were found in excess, when compared to the recorded, balance shown in the RG-1 register. The adjudicating authority accepted the contention of the appellants that, these goods were not in a fully finished condition so as to require their entry in the RG-1 register. The appellant's plea was that the crucibles had not undergone the process of protective coating (glazing), which is absolutely necessary for crucibles and without which the goods do not assume the form of marketability.2. On revenue's appeal, the said findings of the adjudicating authority were reversed by a Commissioner (Appeals) and consequently the appellants were asked to pay redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- along with confirmation of duty of Rs. 2,75,061/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the ins...

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,62,11,753/- confirmed against the appellants' company and penalty of amount equal to duty imposed thereon under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the Dy.Manager (Excise) of the company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, we found that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage; hence after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and decide the appeals with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 28,29 and 38 of the first schedule to the CETA 1985, including hydrogen peroxide falling under CET Sub-Heading 2847.19. The credit of amount confirmed as duty has been disallowed on hydrogen peroxide during the period 1996-97 to 2001-2002 on the ground interalia that they have claimed depreciation as per Section32 of the Income Tax Act which was contrar...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Genius Leathercraft Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC121

1. It is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that trolley carts under import are parts and components falling under Exim Code 39269009.40 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import items and are freely importable.2. The Revenue's contention is that the goods under import are not parts or accessories of school bags made out of plastic but are complete articles in themselves and are classifiable under Exim Code 39269009.90 of the ITC (HS). The effect of such classification under ITC (HS) would be that the goods are restricted under the Import Policy. In the absence of a valid import licence, they are liable to confiscation as held by the original authority.3. None appeared for the respondents. Heard the learned DR, Shri K.K.Srivastava, and perused the records.4. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoning is that according to para 7(29) of the Exim Code, 'part' means an element ...

Shri Kishore S. Hingole, Shri P.T. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant, seeking condonation of delay of nine days in filing the instant appeal.3. The appellants have filed the appeal on 20/11/2003 against the order-in-appeal received on 04/08/2003 by the advocate. The appellants submitted the following grounds in support of request for condonation of delay. c) The appellant is not conversant with the various legal procedures. d) The copy of the order-in-appeal was not directly addressed to the appellant but the same was sent to the advocate for the appellant and due to the same there was a delay in communicating the same to the appellant. e) The appellant's business requires him to travel out of Pune regularly and at times the appellant is out of Pune for days at a stretch. f) The continuous absence of the appellant in Pune has resulted in the delay in communication of the order-in-appeal to the appellant and the consequential delay in the filing of the appeal.4. I have g...

Balaji Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT283Tri(Mum.)bai

2. (a) Appellants are aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Goa, who on their import of old and used diesel engines enhanced the values and imposed redemption fines and penalties as follows:----------------------------------------------------------------Description Enhanced Redemption PersonalOf Goods Value Fine Penalty--------------------------------------------------------------Engines 5,03,977/- 5,04,000/- 51,000/-Seats 10,000/- 2,500/- 1,000/--------------------------------------------------------------- The import was made in March 2000. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants does not press the loading of the valuation and appeal on that issue is therefore dismissed.(b) As regard the redemption fine and penalties it is found that the Bench of this Tribunal in the case Sagar Auto Works[ 2004 (163) ELT 442] had held that Commissioner should determine the margin of profit by his own enquiries before proceeding to decide that goods under importing need a rede...

Vandana Art Prints P. Ltd. and 4 Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,25,79,007 and penalty of Rs. 1,20,12,564 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act plus Rs. One lakh under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules on the Co. and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each on Shri Sushilkumar Tormal Poddar and Shri Prakash Kumar Banwarilal Poddar, Directors of the company and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Ramesh Somani, Accountant and Rs. 20,000/- on Shri Ravikumar Bhatu, Excise Clerk under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. The duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that M/s. Vandana Art Prints P.Ltd. during the period from August 98 to Nov.98 has clandestinely cleared processed fabrics without payment of duty to Merchant manufacturers. The case of the department is mainly based upon the entries made in diaries maintained by one Shri Jhawar, Collection Clerk in the manufacturing unit, covering the period from August to November, 1998...