Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Automats India and Asra and Sudhir Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are being decided by this order since the issue involved in the same.2. The appellant are an assessee under the Central Excise Act and avail the benefit of SSI exemption. But the goods, manufactured by them contending that the brand names "Hot Pot" and "Automats" which were held by the Revenue to be raised that Shri Sudhir Malhotra Proprietor of a firm M/s Asra is also the partner in the appellant firm i.e. M/s Automats. The appellant's firm is contending that the said brand name have being assigned to them by Shri Sudhir Malhotra since September 1988 have been rightly used. Revenue does not accept that fact of the assignment as such as the demand. There is also another allegation against the assessee on charge of related person, in the facts in this case, in as much as M/s Asra been floated by Shri Sudhir Malhotra to declare less value of the goods manufactured by the partnership firm to keep M/s Automats under full exemption. a) It is the accepted position by Shri S...

Vinay Singh Kushwaha and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC257

1.1 Appellants are aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner, who has confirmed a demand of duty and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, confiscated the goods seized and imposed a fine in lieu of confiscation, and directed enforcement of B-8 Bond.1.2 The appellants are manufacturers of various types of toothpaste and dental cleaners bearing brand name and trade name of their customers for example Close up Red, Close up Blue, Close up Green, Close up Whitening and Pepsodent, Signal, Aim etc falling under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for which they hold a proper registration and were discharging duty on 'toothpaste' and 'other dental cleaners' cleared by them. They also availed benefit of Modvat credit. Before effecting the manufacture and clearance of any of their goods, they obtain appropriate registration with the Food and Drug Control authorities as required for 'toothpaste', they submit detailed manufacturi...

ispat Inds. Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT211Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appellant has filed the ROM application on the following grounds: - A) while passing the captioned order, this Hon'ble Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Montari Industries v. ( CF, Chandigarh, was not applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as in the instant case appellant availed credit in respect of capital goods on the strength of the GP1's in the month of July 1994, while the Tribunal in the case of Montari Industries was concerned with credit on inputs availed on the strength GP1's after 30.6.94. Applicant submits that the documents on the strength of which credit is to be availed in Rule 57A and Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are not para material and consequently the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal by relying upon a decision concerning inputs, needs to be modified; b) Applicant submits that Rule 57T(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which prescribes...

Blue Circle Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT387Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants re-imported 2950 kg of 'Para Toluene Sulfonyl Acid Ester (PTSAE) & were allowed to clear the same in terms of Sr No. 2 to notification 158/95 dated 14.11.95. The condition for the duly re-import was to effect an export within 6 months of the reimport ie 13.11.97. The importers failed to do so & vide letter dated 17.4.98 requested for extension of the export period of 2950 kgs as they had export port i.e 500 kgs on 19.1.98. The extension sought was granted & the date informed to them was 13.11.98 instead of 13.5.98. The balance goods were exported on 7.6.98. They were issued a SCN proposing a recover duty for failure to export by 13.5.98, interest was demanded under Section 47(2) orders were confirmed. Hence this appeal. a) Re-imported goods have been exported. The inspection of the Customs House file reveals that the appellants have been granted an extension to re-export upto 13.11.98 vide letter of Customs House to the imports. The noting of the Commissioner...

Bombay Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT371Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 The issue involved is whether, a delay of about 3 months in filling of an option by the proprietor of this small scale unit, would call for denial of exemption to notification No. 8/99 with effect from 1.4.1999 to 1.8.99. The classification declaration required under Rule 173B for the year 1999-2000 was filed only on 2.8.1999, the goods however were cleared with the exempted rates. Differential duties with interest were therefore confirmed and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Rule 173Q was imposed.1.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) did not apply the decision relied by the appellants which are as follows - i) Vickers Sperry of India Ltd 1989 (40) ELT 2002 on the grounds as that case was of exemption not claimed in the classification ii) Vijay Lakshmi Bottler Pvt Ltd. 1991(53) ELT 105 holding that declaration envisaged in notification 80180 was of a procedural nature while herein it was mandatory. iii) Bombay wore Ropes Ltd. 1991(53) ELT 115 was a case of classification last filed but exempt...

H.P.C.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the appellants herein, are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products in their factory at Mahul in Mumbai.1.2 The present appeal pertains to the demand of differential duty on motor spirit (MS) and high speed diesel (HSD) cleared from the appellants' refinery to Vashi terminal without payment of duty and sold to dealers from their terminal at Vashi on payment of duty. They paid duty on the price at which HSD and MS were sold from the Vashi terminal. There is no dispute that the appellants had collected only this price for the sale of HSD and MS from the Vashi terminal or they collected any other amounts separately from their buyers at Vashi terminal when HSD and MS were sold.1.3 Show cause notice dated 16.11.2000 has been issued to the appellants on the ground that in respect of the HSD and MS sold from Vashi terminal, transportation charges from Mahul refinery to Vashi terminal was to be notionally included on the ground ...

Rajendra Kumar Mohta and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

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 penalties imposed upon the applicants (details set out in annexure 'A' to this order), we find that it is possible to hear and dispose of the appeals themselves at this stage, and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit. The case of the department in brief is that goods such as RBD Palmolein were under-invoiced and cleared duty free by submitting forged advance licences and TRAs and sold in the local markets through brokers, and that the whole transaction was masterminded by one Shri More of More Group of Companies. We find that in identical circumstances involving the same group of companies, the appeals were filed before the Tribunal against the imposition of penalties by one P.Charia, R.K. Mundra, D.K. Kafta, Kandla Clearing Agency and others, challenging orders-in-original Nos. 6 & 7 of 2002 dated 15.4.2002 on the twin grounds of lack of jurisdict...

S.V.M.C'S Inlaks And Budhrani Vs. Commissioner Of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant is a Charitable Hospital providing Allopathic, Ayurvedic & Homeopathic treatments to patients irrespective of income levels. They are entitled to avail benefits of duty on imports of medical equipment under notification No. 64/88 dated 1.3.88, after they obtain certificates of Custom duty exemption from the Director General of Health Services, Govt. of India. They imported certain equipments which was cleared during the period 1988 to 1992 on various Bills of Entry by the Custom department without taking any bond or affecting provisional assessment. Director General of Health Services by letter dated 3.4.1992 informed the appellant that they fall under category (2) of the table to notification No. 64/88. On 19.4.2001 another letter was received from the same Director General of Health Services informing the appellant withdrawing the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate granted to them during the period 1988-92 for availing custom duty exemption under notification 64/88 ...

Shree Ram Vessel Scrap Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT683Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. The issue relates to determination of assessable value of a vessel imported for breaking. The appellant claims that as per the commercial invoice dated 22.10.2002 issued on the basis of an addendum to the Memorandum of Agreement for assessment of the vessel.3. The department's contention is that as per the MOA originally entered into between the appellant and the seller of the vessel, the price agreed to was US$ 359,268/- that this price should be the basis for assessment; that any reduction in the price of the goods after their importation is not permissible; that the MOA originally entered into does not provide for any reduction in the price or the basis of any subsequent survey; that the LDT shown in the MOA is 2303 LT excluding permanent ballast, and that the price of US 156/- Multiplied by 2303 LT and should be the price for assessment as specified in the MOA.5. We observe that an identica...

La Grande Projects Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT314Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This Miscellaneous application is for restoration of appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal in its Order No. CII/2268-71/WZB/2002 dated 05/08/2002. The Tribunal, in the order supra dealt with four appeals, one of the present applicants and three of the Revenue all arising out of the same order. As observed from para 2 of the impugned order, when the matter was called a lady counsel seeking to represent the applicant sought an adjournment on the ground that her client (the present applicant) was not responding to her queries. The Tribunal found that it was not a sufficient ground for seeking adjournment. The Tribunal observed that if the client was not ready to brief the advocate, he had to face the consequence. This was made clear to the advocate and asked her to proceed with the case. She declined not to do so. The Bench then proceeded to decide the appeal after taking into consideration the contents in the appeal memorandum. Because the counsel declined to represent her clie...