Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Super Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT212Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 65,26,356/- and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, who has upheld the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner confirming the demand as a result of classification of LPG bodies manufactured by the applicants herein under Chapter Heading 87.07, rejecting their claim for classification under Chapter Heading 87.04.3. Prima facie the issue of classification of the item in dispute, viz.LPG bodies, stands settled against the applicants by virtue of the Tribunal's decision reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 432 (Heat Weld v.CCE). However, we see force in the submission of the applicants that in the face of the stand of the Revenue as reflected in the show cause notice that what is cleared are the bodies mounted on chassis, having running gear (rear axle) which means that what is accepted in the notice is clearance of a final product falling under anothe...

Dipareena Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT220Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, I find that the short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether taking the credit in respect of capital goods before actual installation of the same would result in denial of the credit to the appellants. Shri M.H. Patil, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that they took the credit 20 days before the actual installation of the goods but the said credit was never utilised before the actual installation. Drawing my attention to the provisions of Rule 57Q(7), he submits that even the condition of installation does not apply to the goods of SI. No. 5. The capital goods in question are tools, which do not require any installation. In any case, he submits that the goods having now been installed, there is no dispute about the availability of the credit and the entire exercise would be Revenue neutral. Inasmuch as the appellants would have become entitled to take the credit after a period of 20 days. For the above proposition, reference...

Ceat Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT380Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants were required to pay duty on used nuts and bolts, when the same were cleared by them as waste and scrap during May, 2000 September 2000.2. The Assistant Commissioner vide his impugned order confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 93,019/- in respect of the said goods along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who taking note of the provisions of Rule 57S (2)(c), has held that since the appellants had initially taken modvat credit in respect of nuts and bolts, they are liable to pay duty at the time of clearance of the same as waste and scrap in terms of the above provisions.3. Ld. Representative, appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the notice proposed to recovery of duty under the provisions of Section 11A, as if the appellants were the manufacturer of said waste a...

Galaxy Garments Vs. Commr. of Cus. and Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 29,51,081/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, we found 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 appellant herein is a 100% EOU. The case of the department is that they are engaged in the manufacture, under bond, of readymade garments such as ladies midi skirt, scarves etc. falling under sub-heading 6101.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had removed excisable goods involving duty of Rs. 48,70,769/- during the period from November 2000 to March 2003 for export at nil rate of duty under ARE-1's. The goods had been exported to merchant exporter. In respect of a demand of Rs. 19,19,688/- it has been confirmed on the ground that it was the merchant exporter who was required to file proof of export. However, the present demand has been confirmed against th...

Prakash B. Bagrecha Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT214Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, who has inter alia confirmed duty demands on processor of grey fabrics and imposed penalties on the processor as well as others. The appellant herein is the procurer of grey fabrics from the open market who then sends such fabrics to M/s. Singhal Silk Mills for processing and gets them back after processing. Penalty has been imposed upon the appellant in terms of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules as he was dealing in excisable goods which he knew were non duty paid and therefore were liable to confiscation. In other words, the provisions of Rule 209A have been held to be attracted against the appellants on the ground of their dealing in goods which were liable to confiscation with the knowledge that such goods were liable to confiscation.3. We find that since the appellant was getting his goods processed on job work basis by M/s. Singhal Silk Mills, he was exempt from the rigor of Rule 17...

Mseb Pole Factory Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of P.C.C. Poles. During the period relevant for the purpose of present appeal, their assessment was provisional. The same was finalised by proper officer vide his impugned order in Original dated 31-1-2003. Differential duty of Rs. 2,41,830/- was paid by them in two instalments dated 22-11-2002 and 4-2-2003 i.e. within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order by Assistant Commissioner. Inspite of that, authorities below have confirmed interest against them and as also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Relevant provision of Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 reads as under : "The assessee shall be liable to pay interest on any amount payable to Central Government, consequent to order for final assessment under Sub-rule (3) at the rate specified by the Central Government by notification issued under Section 11AA or Section 11AB of the Act from the first date of the month succeeding the month for which amount...

Jem Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, it is found that the Show Cause Notice issued in this case as its appears from para 7, the charge was raised on related person valuation only. The Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions and the material came to the conclusion that there is no case which could be made out for valuation as per related person concept under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.North Bengal Plywood Industries v. Collr. of Central Excise, Solpur cited in 2000 (115) ELT 839 (T), Tribunal held that where the sale or a part of produce is to unrelated wholesale dealer, and part to related concern, the price under Section 4(1)(a) which is the sale price to unrelated person is available should be the basis for assessable value. This decision is applicable to the present case. The bulk of the sales are to unrelated buyers in the year 1996-97 over 79.64% and during the years from 1997-98 to 2000-01, around 73.28%. Therefore, the normal ex-factory gate price sale ...

C.R. Shukla Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT31Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant in these appeals was an employee of different CHAs and conducting the business of clearance of goods imported in the names of M/s. India Carpet Exports and M/s. Mamta Carpets, Varanasi, U.P.2. It appears that pursuant to certain intelligence, the officers of DRI, Mumbai conducted enquiry and issued Show Cause Notice to the importers and one Mr Anil Chopra and the appellant herein. The allegations in the Show Cause Notices were the Anil Chopra, who is an Import Licence Broker, was attending to the clearance of the consignments imported in the names of various Carpet manufacturer/exporters of Varanasi. The raw materials imported under the DEEC Scheme were alleged to be never delivered to the importers, but were diverted from a godown at Bhiwandi outside Bombay city limits.The appellant herein was alleged and found to be knowingly concerned with such diversion, resulting in violation of notification and thus evasion of duty. It was also found he had handled the imported ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Amrit Dye Chem. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT231Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the confiscation of the goods and has reduced the penalty, has filed the present appeal.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals.Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 24-11-94, who conducted various checks and verifications and found excess quantity of their final products, which was not entered in RG-1 register. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them, which resulted in an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner confiscating the goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Personal penalty of Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 1500/- was imposed upon the appellant's authorised representative.3. On an appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and also reduced the personal penalty. While doing so, he observed as under :- "As regards non-...

Neha Inercontinental (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC454

1. The appellants herein filed five bills of entry during the period between 26.4.2004 and 24.5.2004 for clearance of 16,000 sets of San brand Air Conditioners imported from China under a contract, declaring the value as US$ 85 per piece. The uniform value declared for 4 different models was disputed on the ground that the appellants had not opened letter of credit; that no quantity discount was shown to have been given by the foreign supplier to any other buyer and that the appellants did not produce the manufacturer's invoice, on the basis of NIDB data purported to be for similar model of same tonnage and same country of origin. It was proposed to increase the value for model No.KFR-51 GW to Rs. 9,100/- CIF, for model KFR 61-GW to Rs. 13,325/- CIF, for model K-66 GW to Rs. 14,000/- CIF and for ModelASW-24 to Rs. 14,000/- CIF per piece. A quantity discount of 10% was proposed and thereafter the values for the models were enhanced to Rs. 8190/-, Rs. 11,993/-, Rs. 12,500/- and Rs. 12,6...