Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Marakhia Metal Pvt. Ltd. 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 (Appeals), who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant company was found to have removed 5005.500 Kgs of copper pipe valued at Rs. 6,25,688/- without payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 93,853. These copper pipes were found in the premises of one M/s Bright Tubes industries to whom the pipes appeared to have been sold. The Additional Commissioner, adjudicated the case, held that the said pipes were non-duty paid and so confiscated them and appropriated Rs. 1,56,422/- from the Bank Guarantee executed at the time of provisional release. Shri Dilip Shantilal Morakhia is the Director of the appellant company. The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 93,000/- under Section 209A of the CE Rules. He imposed an amount of Rs. 93,000/- as penalty on one Piyush Karan Vyas, authorised signatory of the appellant company under Rule 209A. The three appellants fa...

Pratibha Industries Ltd., the Vs. J.V. Gokal and Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC708

1. Appellants in appeal No. C/678/04, applied for registration of contract, awarded by 'Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhitern Work' Division No.2 Akola, under the Project Imports Regulation 1986. The Dy Commissioner, after considering the submission & hearing the importer came to the following findings- "The importer in their oral submission and as well as in written submission have stated that they are importing only Ductile Pipes as project import under Customs Traiff Heading 9801 read with. Customs Exemption Notification No. 21/2002 Cus dated 0102002. I find that pipes are not being items in the nature of machinery/Equipments or components for manufacturing the same, would not be eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No. 21/2002 as because the same are not classifiable under Chapter Heading 98.01." "I, therefore order that "Ductile pipes" are not classifiable under heading 98.01 of Customs Traiff and thus the importer is not eligible for the exemption Notification No. 21/...

Goel Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Acc)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC422

1. Appellants are manufacturers of watches. They filed BEs No. 2063 & 2064 both dated 4.12.97 seeking clearance of goods declared as Watch ports, Assorted Dials, sets of hands in BEs 2063 & Quartz movements, Automative movements and Mechanical movements in BE 2064 seeking assessment under headings 9111.30, 9114.30, 9114.90 in BE 2063 & 9108.99 in BE 2064. The goods were examined, it appeared, to the assessing officers, that goods taken together, in the two BES, are forming complete watch. Thereby it was considered that 1275 watches of Raymond Weil brand in completely knocked down condition were imported which should be classified under heading 9107.21/9101.29 and by this modus, it was alleged that the appellant had attempted to evade duty of Rs. 7,60,549 and since import of watches was restricted and required a licence, and no import licence being produced it was a case of raising liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) and penalty under Section 112. The show cause ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Vikram Ispat

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of CC (Appeals) who vide order in appeal No. 606/99 dated 3.6.99, ordered - "I observe that the appellant paid duty for a quantity of 2,75,700 metric ton of fuel oil and 32.800 metric ton of gas oil at the time of conversion of the vessel from foreign run to coastal run. Subsequently, a quantity of 67.557 metric ton of gas oil was supplied to the vessel locally during the period of coastal running of the vessel. Again on 14.1.1997, the vessel was re-converted from coastal run to foreign run. The inventory of bunkers were taken and quantity found was fuel oil 175.705 metric ton and gas oil 25.459 metric ton. Therefore, the quantity consumed during the course of coastal running of the vessel was 95.995 metric ton for fuel oil and 76.918 metric ton for gas oil. Lower authority rejected appellant's refund claim for gas bunkers at the lime of conversion of the vessel from foreign run to coastal run, quantity of gas oil was recorded 32.800 metric to...

Rinkoo Processors (P) Ltd. and Man Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority demanding central excise duty of Rs. 42,730/-, appropriating Rs. 95,000/-from the bank guarantee executed when the seized goods were released provisionally, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) on M/s. Rinkoo Processors Pvt. Ltd. and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the director of the appellant company under Rule 209A.2. Briefly the facts are that on verification of fabrics lying in the factory premises of the appellant, it was found that a quantity of 4409 1.mtrs. of spun x spun fabrics valued at Rs. 66,135/- and 25 packed bales admeasuring 22,842 1. mtrs. valued at Rs. 3,42,630/- were found unaccounted. As the goods have reached the RG1 stage and not accounted for in any of the statutory records, they were seized and were later provisionally released on execution of a bond. The officers also found a quantity of 18,381.60 ...

Saraswati Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT40Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Saraswati Engineering Works (SEW) Ambernath are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Castings (Chapter 76 of CETA). They are neither declararants nor registrants under Rule 174 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules. M/s. Saraswati Engineering Works is a proprietary firm, Smt. Vithabai Gopal Musale was the Propritress. Those days (1996) SSI exemption limit was Rs. 30 lakhs.2. M/s. Saraswati Rubber Works (SRB) Kalina belongs to Shri Gopal B.Musale, the proprietor. This firm carrie out machining process on the Aluminium castings manufactured by M/s. SEW. Gopal B. Musale, who now expired, was the husband of Smt. Vithbai Musale. The Ambernath factory (M/s. SEW) was set up as there was no possibility of setting it up at 'their' Kalina factory because of the restriction placed on the industrial units.3. The events that led to the seizure of Aluminium Casting manufactured by M/s. SEW would be narrated later on. During the course of investigation the officers found that Aluminium Castin...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Apar Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Apar Ltd. (Specially Oil Refinery) a registered company, has two manufacturing premises and has obtained Central Excise Registration under jurisdiction of two different Central Excise Commissioners in Mumbai. These two assessee, for the ease of reference, are hereunder called as Apar - Rabale and Apar - Mahul.1.2 These appeals, emerging from different orders but on same common issue, being disposed of by the common order. Appeal No. 1483/02 Mum is filed by Revenue against order No. 32/2001 at 24.02.2001 by CCE, Mumbai. Appeal E/2967/00 is filed by the General Manager - M/s. Apar India Ltd., against order No. 36/2000 of CCE- Mumbai and E-2966/00 by Apar Rabale against order No. 36/2000 and E/1 702/01 is filed by Apar Mahul against order No. 32/2000 of CCE, Mumbai.2.1 Both units manufacture Rubber Processing oils (hereinafter referred to as RPO) and avail MODVAT credit on the inputs and discharge duty on RPO at the rate of 15% advalorem on approval value of Rs. 13,000/- PMT.2.2 ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT28Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are being decided by this common order, the issue is grant of refund under Rule 57AC(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002) for unutilised credit of duty paid on inputs used in the final products cleared for export under Bond or LUT as per Notification No. 35/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-4-2000 and Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002. (a) that the assessee had filed refund claims under Rule 57AC(7) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and now Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The same were not granted on the ground that certain conditions were not fulfilled as the assessee was found to have under valued finished goods i.e. Copper Cathode cleared to their other unit at Silvassa, for which another case was pending and is under consideration separately. The claim of the refund which remain unutilised due to reason of such under valuation of finished goods has been explained by the appellant that...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Chemet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT250Tri(Mum.)bai

1 When the matter was called, none appeared for the Respondents. Heard the D.R. and gone through the materials.2. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order classified imported methyl parathion technical purity 80% under Heading 3.808.10. The Commissioner, after considering that the Central Board of Excise & Customs, had issued a circular for classifying insecticide of technical grade under Chapter 29 which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by pesticides manufacturers and Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an order as under: "For the foregoing reasons, the petition allowed. The impugned Circular number 348/64/97 dated 25.10.97 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs is directed to be struck down. All the notices issued and action taken based on the said circular shall also stand quashed and set aside. No order as to costs." Thereafter noting that Heading 2920 adopted by the Depart...

Woodmac (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC546

1. These appeals are being disposed by this order as they arise from the same order of Commissioner. The impugned order dated 28.08.2003 of Commissioner disposed of two Show Cause Notices - one dated 14.03.2001 and the other dated 02.05.200l. The Show Cause Notice dated 14.3.2001 sought to confiscate the seized goods and impose penalties, while the notice dated 02.05.2001 seeks to demand duty from M/s Woodmac (Bombay) Pvt Ltd. (hereafter referred to as M/s Woodmac for (brief) charge interest and impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. It also seeks to impose penalty on various other noticees under Rule 209A of the said Rules.2. a) The case of the Department is that during the period 1996-1997 to 2000-2001 (upto August 2000), the appellant M/s Woodmac had manufactured and cleared 'Decorative Plywood' by mis-declaring it a 'Repressed Plywood' in order to evade payment of appropriate amount of ...