Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Banyan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are an 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). Based on export performances, they are permitted by the Development Commissioner to sell part of the production, on payment of duty in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). They avail benefit of notification 2/95-CE or 8/97-CE as applicable on such clearances to DTA. The valuation of goods so cleared to DTA on sale was questioned, vide show cause notice dated 6.9.2001 and value proposed to be enhanced to Rs. 2,563/- per kg. which was the FOB value of same goods exported on 30.8.1999, and differential duty demanded. They were also to be denied the benefit of notification 8/97 and demanded duty, under notification 2/95 since the imported raw materials were used in the manufacture of the goods sold in DTA. The lower authority confirmed the demands as proposed, and imposed penalty and interest. In appeal, the demands of duty and interest were confirmed and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 9,77,821/- to Rs. 4,54,797/-. Hence this appeal.2. (a...

Merind Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT422Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are manufacturer of medicament. They manufacture Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate Inbjection (DSP Injection) and cleared the same under the brand name of Decadron Phosphate Injection and or Deddan Branded Injection and they pay duty on such branded injections cleared under Heading 30.03.10 of CETA, 1985. The same drug is used in manufacture of DSP injection and on which no brand names are affixed.Such generic name injections are cleared at nil rate of duty under Heading 3003.20 2. For the manufacture of these branded and generic injections, common inputs are used and at the receipt thereof, Modvat credi is availed and no separate accounts are maintained. Therefore, as provided for vide Rule 57CC, the assessee was reversing 8% of the value of the generic injections cleared under Heading 3003.20 at nil tariff rate of duty.The branded injections were being cleared at appropriate rate of duty.3. During the course of manufacture of these injections a product referred as D-21 em...

Shree Deepak Export Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai, who is the impugned order held that the exporter contravened the provisions of 50(2) of the Customs Act and thereby rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Rule 113(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and have rendered himself liable to penalty under Section 114(iii) of the same Act. He confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 52,25,595/- and allowed him to redeem the goods on payment of a fine Rs. 75,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the exporting company, M/s Shree Deepak Export. Hence this appeal.3. In brief, the acts are that the appellant filed a Drawback Shipping Bill seeking to export assorted cotton woven readymade garments and declared a total FOB value of Rs. 52,25,595/-. The consignment was examined. On such examination, it was found that it consisted of old and used garments and the majority of the items were found to be ladies shirts/blouses etc as against the declar...

Zenith Computers Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT316Tri(Mum.)bai

a) The issue in classification of an entity 'TV box' designed to convert TV signals into digital signals which can then be sent for display, storage, print out on a Computer. It has a lead from T.V. Cable inputs and an exit to C.P.U. of a computer with circuits inside to convert the signals for the stated purpose. b) Revenue accepts it is for exclusive use in Computer and the contest before us is only that it is not an accessory to a computer and relies upon heading notes in HSN under 8528 to call them Video Tuners to place them under 8528.12. c) The assesses finds support from the decision in the case of CC v. H.C.L, HEWLETT PACUAXD (1999 (105) ELT 362 Tri) where the Bench after observing the Commissioner finding to the effect "..... he had found substantial force in the importers contention that the goods imported could work only as assessors to the computer" held that TV coder is mounted on a PCB is different from Video recording or reproding apparatus and note under 8471 which rea...

Wrights Pulls and Lifts Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai

a) Appellants are engaged in the business of Ship chandelling and Lifting accessories. They import POLYESTER WEBBING SLINGS (herein after referred to as Webbing Slings) and Polyester Round slings (herein after referred to as Round slings). The goods are sold, to users of cranes and other connected products, to enable lifting of heavy weight cargo using such slings. The interalie imported was 1328 pcs of 'WEBBING SLINGS', a BE was filed on 2.3.98 seeking the same to be classified under heading 5911.90 and cleared without a licenses. Revenue classified the same under 6307.90 and demanded a licence, since imports of goods under 6307.90 were restricted. A fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation and penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was imposed. In appeal the CC (Appeal) confirmed the order reducing the penalty to Rs. 1 lakhs observing the appellants did not contest the classification and order on ROUND SLINGS. b) Two such consignment imported earlier on 6/6/97 and 24/9/97 had also met the s...

Mr. Ganpat Singh S/O Shri Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Goa Represented by ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR381

N.A. Britto, J.1. The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Mapusa, vide judgment and order dated 17/25th November, 2003.2. The case of the prosecution against the accused was that on 20th November, 2000, at about 00.20 hours, the accused was found near the football ground at Baga in illegal possession of 2 kgs. of opium.3. The accused was charged and tried by the learned Special Judge under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short). In the trial of the accused, prosecution had examined 7 witnesses including P.W. 5, Rajesh Kumar, P.S.I, who had conducted the said raid.4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, three points have been raised by Mr. G. Kanekar, learned Counsel of the accused, points which were earlier raised and dealt with by the learned Special Judge of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Mapusa...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. V.K. Steels Pvt. Ltd., V.K. Mehta,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT494Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When these matters were called. Respondents were absent. Heard the Ld D.R. and considered the material on record and it is found that: (a) the Ld Commissioner, while adjudicating the case, has considered the test report for the consignment of M/s Hico Products Ltd, where there was an opinion avail that polystyrene wide spec was not known terminology. The opinion of University of Bombay, Department of Chemical Technology also confirmed that there was no scientific basis or any technical definition for the term 'wide spec' for any commonly used grades of Polystyrene. The University further opined that it may not sound appropriate to designate HIPS (wide spec) since HIPS was having specific properties. The Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, vide their interim report reference, termed all the samples belonging to 'wide spectra category' and professor M.K. Trivedi, when contacted and requested to give his opinion with regard to polystyrene imported, opined that 'wide spec' was not ...

indoworth India Ltd., Shri Sunil Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate for the appellants furnishes the following break-up of the duty demanded under the impugned order:-____________________________________________________________________________________Annexure Details of Period Customs Excise duty Totalto SCN Demand Duty_____________________________________________________________________________________A/AA Diversion Oct. 1998 to 48,19,358/- 1,32,219/- 49,51,577 of furnance Oct. 2001B Short receipt March 2001 to 3,58,463/- 1,41,703/- 5,00,166/- of furnance Oct. 2001C Clearance of Aug. 1998 to - 1,16,08,359/- 1,16,08,359/- yarn as March 1999D Clearance of Sept. 1998 to - 48,44,539/- 48,44,539/- wool waste Aug. 2002______________________________________________________________________________ Total 2,19,04,641/-_______________________________________________________________________________ He also states that, in addition, the following penalties have been imposed:-1) Indoworth India Ltd. Rs. 2,19...

Baroda Rayon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT732Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, and considering the material, it is found : (a) during the period 17.8.1994 to 27.9.1994, appellants cleared excisable goods on payment o duty, after availing input credit under the Modvat Scheme. However, it was brought on record that the benefit of Notification 121/94 dated 11.8.1994 was available and the final goods cleared were eligible for the benefit of clearance without payment of any duty thereon. The department therefore issued a notice proposing to deny the Modvat credit eligibility on clearances effected during the impugned period as final products were considered to be not liable to pay any duty vide the aforesaid notification. Duty Demands on Modvat Credit ineligibility & recovery were determined. Hence this appeal. (b) The appellants have relied upon the decision in the case of CCE v. SAIL 1990 (47) ELT 389, Jagjit Industries Ltd 1998 (99) ELT 509 Polychem Ltd v. CCE 1997 (90) ELT 156 and various other decisions to claim that even if good...

Shiv Om Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved pertains to service Tax. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a Service provider. He is required to pay Service provided as Custom House clearing Agents. The appellant failed to do so. A show cause notice was issued and in the adjudication proceedings a penalty of Rs. 5,500/- was imposed under Section 77 and Rs. 61,000/- under Section 76 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. It is not disputed that the Service Tax payable had been paid by the appellant along with interest on delayed payments.2. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the appellants' claim that the payment for their services was delayed by his clients and therefore the returns could not be filed in time during the period March 1999 to 23.5.2000 was not substantiated by the appellants. The appellants claim before me is that it is a fact that payments were delayed as evidenced from their accounts. When the liability is discharged with interest, penalty should not have been imposed for d...