Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Besix Dabhol S.A. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT539Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein imported the following vessels for carrying out the work of construction of Breakwater and LNG Jetty for setting up LNG facility for the Dabhol Power Project for which they have been awarded a contract: (1) 3 Nos. of Zodiac Semi-Rigid Pro II 500 inflatable boats; (2) One Fibreglass Boat - Dolphin Deluxe 3100; and (3) Two sets of Fibreglass Boats Hoor 127 (non-inflatable) under three bills of entries, all dated 29/10/1999, for a total CIF value of Rs. 29,75,797 and claimed clearance under para 5.7 of the Exim Policy 1997-2002 and assessment under Chapter heading 8901.90 of the CTA, 1975 which covers vessels for the transport of goods and other vessels for the transport of both persons and goods, other than cruise ships, excursion boats, ferry-boats, cargo ships, barges and similar vessels for the transport of persons or goods. In the alternate they claimed assessment of the goods under Chapter heading 89.03. Heading 89.03 and 8903.99 are set out below:89.03 Yac...

Rangoli Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Prayer in the stay petition is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 69,34,924/- and an equivalent amount of personal penalty imposed upon the appellant by the Commissioner on the ground that the appellant have not discharged their duty liability in accordance with the annual capacity of production fixed by the proper officer in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000.2. Shri A. Mishra, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they had discharged their duty burden on the basis of the actual production. He also submits that during the period May to August 2000 their factory was lying closed and as such no duty was paid. He, however, clarifies that during the period in question they were discharging their duty liability on the basis of actual production in terms of the Interim Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.As such the Ld. Advocate prays for grant of unconditional stay.3. ...

Anil Damodar Dagh and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V, who in the impugned order confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 30,30,117/- against M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries under Rule 9(2) of the Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 173Q, confiscated the seized goods worth Rs. 7,61,416/-, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the partners of the firm under Rule 209A and imposed various penalties against the persons who are in appeal before us.2. The facts are that the appellants manufactured during the relevant time plastic moulded parts of domestic mixers falling under chapter heading 8509 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On search of the premises of the appellants, the officers found that some goods (mixer parts) were not accounted. These goods valued at Rs. 7,51,400 where seized. The officers also found 13 kacchha delivery challan books of 100 pages each on the strengt...

Rusi Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985. In addition to their own products, they also manufactured branded products of others on loan licence basis. In respect of their own products, they claimed exemption under notification 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 and simultaneously availed modvat credit facility. By order dated 22.1.1996, the Assistant Commissioner approved classification list filed by the appellants by denying the benefit of full exemption claimed for clearances upto Rs. 30 lakhs under notification 1/93 for their own products, as they were availing modvat facility. In the meanwhile, four show cause notices raising a demand of Rs. 10,25,167.37 were issued for the period December 1993 to May 1995. By order dated 6.2.1996, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 4,80,000.01 for the period from 1.4.1994 to 21.7.1994 and dropped the proceedings for the remaining period. Both...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maniar and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s Maniar & Company (Respondents) are engaged in the manufacture of goods under chapter No. 87 and filed classification lists for body building on chassis under heading 8701.00, 8705.00 & 8707.00 & Reservoir Tanks under 7309.00 & tractors etc under 8716.00 claiming exemption under notification 162/86 dated 1.3.86 & 175/86. A proceeding was launched which resulted in an order by the Additional Commissioner who held:- (i) duty collected, representing Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 49,267/-; Rs. 91,228/- & Rs. 10,293/- as per Annexure A-1, A-2, was not deposited as per Section 11D should be recovered (ii) demand of duty confirmed, as per Annexure B to the notice, amounts to Rs. 1,63,409/-, for having mis-declared the goods and availing of notification No. 175/86 which was not entitled. (iii) demand of duty, as per Annexure-B1 to the notice amounting to Rs.58,362/- by showing resale bills for which no purchase bills were produced and were in fact goods ...

Sahney Kirkwood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT307Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard Shri F. Sorabjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri Hitesh Shah, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue at length. The issue in this appeal is whether the impugned goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants are to be classified as articles of mica under Heading 68.07 as claimed by the appellants or as insulators under Heading 85.46 as determined by the lower authorities.2. It has been forcefully contended on behalf of the appellants that the mica products manufactured and cleared by the appellants are not composite products and that in view of Explanatory Note to Heading No.68.14 of the HSN, the impugned goods are classifiable under the corresponding Heading 68.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellants that the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Isovolta (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 462 and C.C.E. v. Isovolta (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 642 (T) followed by the Commissioner (A...

Kilitch Co. (Pharma) Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT415Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,71,540/-and penalty of equal amount, and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. On hearing both sides, we find that show cause notice proposed recovery of duty from both M/s. Kilitch Co. (Pharma) Ltd. and M/s.Kilitch Drugs (India) Ltd., the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand against M/s. Kilitch Drugs (India) Ltd. and imposed penalty of amount equal to duty under Section 11 AC on M/s. Kilitch Co. (Pharma) Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. Kilitch Drugs (India) Ltd.; subsequently the Additional Commissioner issued a corrigendum on 16.12.2003, which reads as under:- Sub: Demand of duty in respect of the goods manufactured on loan Licence basis by M/s. KILITCH Co. (Pharma) Ltd. under-valuation-reg. In respect of Order-in-Original No. 18/RKS(ADDL.) 2003/MIV dated 24-09-2003 passed by the undersigned and issued...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sintex Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

a) that the Commissioner (Appeals) after finding that duty on the final product alleged to have been lost in a fire accident was paid vide Entry No. 2034 dated 1.3.1999 in the RG23A Part II under protest, the question of reversing Modvat credit under Rule 57C therefore would not be contemplated. (i) remission of duty has been rejected and the duty has been paid under protest and the assessee has not paid the duty unconditionally. (ii) Board's Circular No 66/88-CX-6 dated 6.9.1988 is not relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not relevant as that circular dealt with credit of duty on raw materials destroyed in fire before being brought into use in the manufacture of final product. (iii) CEGAT's Order No. A2435/96-NB dated 4.10.1996 in case of M/s Inalsa Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not relevant as that order relates to remission o duty under Rule 49. c) That the duty has been paid on the final products, on which rem...

Kokan Synthetics and Chemicals Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application seeks waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 62,26,822/- and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which the applicants are required to deposit in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.2. The applicants are 100% EOU and they are engaged in the manufacture and export of Sulphanilic Acid Technical (S.A.T). Surphanilic Acid and Aniline are the two ingredients used in the manufacture. The applicants had imported part quantity of Aniline and partly procured it from the domestic supplier. In respect of clearances to the DTA, they sought the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 01/03/97. The duty concession is applicable only if the goods are manufactured "wholly" from the indigenous raw materials. In terms of the investigation carried out by the department, it was revealed that, the manufacturer did not maintain proper records and therefore it was not possible to hold that the goods cleared to the DTA were made wholly from indigenous raw mate...

Electro Appliances Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. It has been alleged by the department that there was a shortage of 1,10,011 pieces of piezo in respect of which a duty demand of Rs. 74,490/- has been confirmed by the adjudicating Commissioner and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that they were receiving duty paid and non duty paid piezo for use in the manufacture of gas lighters. On the day of stock taking on 12-12-1991, there were 33,480 pieces of duty paid piezo and 2725 pieces of non duty paid piezo in stock. No physical shortage was noticed during the stock taking.However, the show cause notice cum demand notice has been issued on the basis of : - (i) total receipt of both categories of piezo during the period 1988 to 1991, (ii) quantity issued for manufacture and (iii) quantity of gas lighters manufactured. The appellants have explained that the shortage has arisen due to natural breakage in the course of manufacture while fitting piezos by hammering in...