Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Reshma Trade Links Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In all these applications, the Revenue makes a prayer for condoning the delay of 1 year and 153 days in filing the present appeals against the impugned order No. 247 to 287/2002-MCH dated 30/04/2002, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)Mumbai.2. Arguing on the application Shri Bablani, Ld. JCDR submits that the impugned order was received by the office of the Commissioner of Customs on 16/05/2002 and the same was accepted by the Commissioner of Customs on 05/08/2002. Thereafter on 21/08/2003 a letter was received from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, wherein directions were issued stating that in an identical issue, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal, therefore, appeals be also failed in the present cases so as to maintain uniformity. As such, he submits that, the appeals were filed along with condonation of delay applications.3. Countering the revenue's request for condoning the delay, Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Advocate appearing for th...

Evershine Cera Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has upheld the change of clandestine clearance of glazed riles by the appellants during the period from 1996 1997 and remanded the case for recomputation of duty demand, in the light of the decision of the Tribunal's larger bench in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres on cum-duty price, and upheld the penalty imposed under Section MAC / Rule 173Q on the assessee company and reduced the penalty on its director from Rs. 50,000/-. as imposed by the adjudicating authority, to Rs. 10,000/-.3. We find that the charge is based upon loading slips recovered from the premises of the transporters, which showed that the goods manufactured by the appellants herein had been loaded on the trucks.Central Excise bills and invoices had been issued, and Excise duty was paid only in respect of 15 transport loading slips but in respect of the remaining 18 loading slips, the goods were cleared without cover of Central Excise invoice and withou...

Consumers Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT415Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of customs duty of Rs. 8,75,951/- and penalty of Rs. 8,76,000/- we find that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit.2. The Commissioner of Customs has confirmed the above demand and imposed penalty as above on the ground that the appellants herein who are transferees of VBAL licences were not entitled to duty free clearance as the merchant-exporters/original licence holder had availed input stage credit which was contrary to the conditions of Notification 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992.3. On hearing both sides we find that neither does the show cause notice disclose the basis for the above allegation nor does the order rely upon any evidence to establish availment of input stage credit by the original licence holder, except to state that since the final product was excisable, the credit may have been...

Avdel (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT201Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue pertains to classification of goods described as blind rivets manufactured by the appellant. The rival contentions are that the said goods are classifiable under Chapter heading 7318.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 according to the appellant and under Chapter heading 8308.00 according to the Revenue. "14. In this case it is observed that the assessee was manufacturing the said product since 1992 and filing classification lists as 'Blind Rivets' falling under chapter sub-heading 7318.29 from time to time. The assessee stated that the rivets manufactured by them are of iron & steel. However, the literature supplied by the assessee states that the rivets are available in aluminium alloy material in a variety of lengths and diameters." In this context, I refer to the description of goods falling under heading 7318 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, wherein it is very clear that articles of Iron & Steel falls under this head. Since their goods namely riv...

Maniyar Plast Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT498Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant company manufactures woven sacks, plastic moulded furniture and household articles like crates, baskets, water bottles, toy tables etc. It is the appellants' contention that the last named articles (Toy Tables) fall under chapter 95-moulded furniture under 94 and woven sacks and household articles under chapter 39. They avail of MODVAT credit on polypropylene (pp) granules used in the manufacture of woven sacks and moulded furniture and clear the same on payment of appropriate duty. The appellants avail of the benefit of Notification No. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.97 which exempts the household products falling under chapter 39 from payment of Central Excise duty provided no MODVAT is availed on the inputs that go into the manufacture of such products.It is the contention of department that the appellant company violated the condition of the said notification while clearing household articles at Nil rate of duty in as much as they used the inputs on which credit has been taken...

Hindustan Biologicals Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants challenge the order of the lower authorities whereby the appellants products "Albendazole Suspension" has been classified under chapter sub heading No. 3003.10 of the tariff, as against the claim of the appellants seeking classification under sub heading No.3003.20.3. We note that the lower authorities proceeded to hold the classification under chapter sub heading No. 3003.10 as patent or proprietary medicament, only for the reason that the term "I.P" did not appear immediately after the name of the drug shown on the labels of the products. Accordingly, the authorities held that the product is not a medicine as specified in the Pharmacopoeia and therefore is liable to be classified under sub heading No. 3003.10.4. In this connection, we note that Chapter note No. 2 (ii) to Chapter 30 of Pharmaceutical products states that "patent or proprietary medicaments" means any drug or medicinal preparation, in whatever form, for use in the internal or external treatment of, or...

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri K.C. Shah, Shri Kamlesh J.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT476Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The Commissioner, in the impugned order was dealing with the show cause notice issued by the DRI to the importers seeking change of classification of the imported material described under a brand name "Expancel 642 WU (Blowing Agent), the correct description/chemical name of which was "Microspheeres Poly Vinylidene Chloride". It was alleged that the importers ought to have furnished complete declaration and mentioned classification under heading No. 3904.50 as against the classification declared under chapter heading No. 3809.91. The Commissioner, (sic) in the impugned order observed that, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs had also issued the show cause notices proposing finalizing the provisional assessments. Some of the assessments are pending finalization while others have been finalized. The Commissioner observed that the proceedings which have been initiated by DRI in resp...

Dhananjay Enterprises, Anil Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT269Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arise from the same order are being disposed of this common order after hearing both sides.2. Pursuant to inquiries made by the officers a notice was issued for non accountal & removal of excisable goods without discharging duty therein. The Dy. Commissioner, found the charges in the notice established & ordered---- (i) Confirmed duty of Rs. 1,213/- on lay flat tunings found in tempo no MH021999 with interest ordered confiscation of 391.155 up of lay flat turnings found in the tempo valued at Rs. 24,251.6.1 under Rule 173Q (1) & ordered the same to be re-determined a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Ordered confiscation under Rule 173Q(1) of 701.25 up of LFT & 1100 up of plastic granville both valued Rs. 95081.25 fine not accounted in the factory & ordered the same to be re-determined on fine of Rs. 25,000/- (iii) Confined duty of Rs. 1,03,623/- on lay flat turnings claiming removed with penalty under 11AC of equivalent amount. (iv) With interest penalty ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Jewellers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Revenue is in appeal against the finding of the CCE (Appeals) who observed that the assessee had filed a declaration under Rule 173B on 2-7-1996 effective 11-6-96 and a corrigendum on 15-7-96, which was within 30 days of 2-7-96 to claim the benefit of Notification 1/93.Therefore grant of exemption is not called. Revenue has contended that corrigendum dated 15-7-96 was received in Range office on 7-8-96.Therefore, the bar of 30 days, in view of Rule 173B(2)(c) is called.This rule reads as - "(2) If in the declaration so filed under Rule (1), any alteration becomes necessary in respect of any goods because of - The assessee should like wise file a fresh declaration or an amendment of the declaration already filed within 30 days of any alteration mentioned above.............." This rule does not provide any time-limit for a "Corrigendum". A Corrigendum cannot an 'amendment'. It can only be a correction/rectification of the declared interest. No reasons appear in the grounds taken as t...

Kapoor Machinery Stores and P.C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants made a prayer to decide the appeal on the basis of written submission filed by them. Accordingly, I have heard Shri A.K.Saxena, Ld. JDR for the revenue.2. Vide his impugned order the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 6,921/- against M/s. Kapoor Machinery Stores along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 22 diesel engine valued at Rs. 1,82,320/- have also been confiscated and bond executed at the time of provisional release has been ordered to be encashed in lieu of confiscation, Further penalty has been imposed on the 2^nd appellant under various sections and trucks have also been confiscated with an option to redeem.3. Briefly stated facts are that on 6.6.2000 Preventive Officers of Central Excise visited factory premises of M/s. P.C. Udyog and trucks loaded with diesel oil engine were found. However, the invoices covering the said engines...