Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Racal Survey Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT67Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants, is a company incorporated in Great Britain and have an office in Bombay. They carry on the business of Hydrographic Survey for various oil/Telecommunication companies in respect of Pipe lines laid under water in the High Seas as also surveys prior to & relevant for marine construction activity.1.2 Consequent to a contract awarded by M/s J. feay Me Dermott, Middle-East (Indian Ocean) Ltd. (hereafter referred to as M/s. Me Dermott) the appellants installed Survey Equipment on board a Vessel M.V. Sutton Tide (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Vessel'). This was done at Port of Jebel Ali U.A.E. on 27-10-1999. The equipment installed was in accordance with ONGC specification 2011. The said vessel was to be employed by M/s. Me Dermott for ONGC Survey contract in Bombay High.1.3 The said vessel under charter to M/s. Me Dermott and was owned by M/s. Tide Water Marine International. The said vessel arrived at Mumbai Port on 5-11-1999, the agents M/s J.M. Basi & Co. on...

Atul Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants manufacture goods falling under Chapter Heading 28 and 29 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. One of the products namely Para-cresidine is sold to the applicant's sister concern. The dispute pertains to valuation of the product sold to the, sister concern. It has to be mentioned that the same product is sold to other un-related buyers as well. The Department seeks to adopt the price at which the goods are sold to unrelated buyers to the ones sold to the sister concern. The period in dispute is May 1996 to July 2000.The show cause notice was issued on 30.4.2001. A part of the period is covered under normal period of limitation.2. In the impugned order the lower appellate authority confirmed the demand for differential duty of Rs. 33,45,670/- and equal amount of penalty. The present application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penally.3. We observe that the period of dispute is covered under old Section 4 and the Valuation Rules 1975. The value is det...

Gulshanlal F. Bahel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner in having imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112 (d) of the Customs Act 1962 in pursuance of show cause notice issued to the appellants amongst others after inquiries were made by the officer consequent to an intercept & seizure from one Shri. Kanchiraat Issudheen, Indian national on his arrival at Mumbai Airport from Dubai by Flt No. GF-050 on 7.5.93 of 60 bars of foreign origin gold totally weighing 6996 gms.1.2 The pax, inter alia in his Statements deposed that he was to wear a "Police Security Photo" given to him and walk out of the hall pretending to be staff on duty, & hand over the gold contained in the brief case to a person who will identity him from the photo pass displayed. Inquiries made with the Police Department revealed that the said photo pass recovered from the pax was not genuine.1.3 On 17.06.93, the statement of on Gade, was recorded. He admitted to be proprietor of a shop 'Bobby Beedi Sh...

Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC78

1. The stay application arise out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Gwalior. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that the appellant is liable to pay differential duty of Rs. 1,28,45,576. He also confirmed the penalty under Rule 173Q imposed by the lower authority to the tune of Rs. 40 lakhs.2. The facts are that the appellants manufacture products falling under Chapter heading 1804 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and clear them as other goods preparation containing cocoa on payment of duly on the assessable value determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act. The Department's contention however is that provisions of Section 4A(1) & (2) of the Central Excise Act, are applicable in respect of 'Dairy Milk Eclairs' and are therefore to be assessed on the basis of retail price less permissible abatement in terms of Notification Nos. 9/2000-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2000 and 5/2001-CE(NT). The allegation is that the appellant failed to follow the provisions of Section 4A read w...

Sanjay Shah and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC550

1.1 Appellants are an 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacture of Cotton fabrics and export thereof and their Director and Executives.1.2 They cleared cotton fabrics against Advance Release orders (hereinafter referred to as ARO for short) issued against duty free import licence without payment of any, and filed RT 13 returns. No Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 leviable on such goods and not exempt under Notification 82/92-CE was alleged to be evaded. The same was determined and confirmed by the orders of the Commissioner under provision of Section 11A alongwith interest as demanded by: (i) SCN dt 4.8.2000 for period of clearance 7/99 to 9/99 (ii) SCN dt 3.1.2001 for period 12/99 (iii) SCN dt 17.1.2001 for period 1/2000 to 2/2000 and corrigendum dt 30.3.2001 (iv) SCN dt 26.2.2001 for period 3/2000 and corrigendum dt 30.3.01 (v) SCN dt 2.5. 2001 for period 4/2000 and a sixth notice was issued on 30.5.2001 by the Commissioner invoking Section 11 AC...

Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT533Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Electric Storage Batteries" classifiable under chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985. Two types of storage batteries are being manufactured by the appellants. Dry charge batteries are meant for replacement market and the other types are meant for the original equipment manufacturers. The appellants cleared uncharged batteries to their job workers in terms of the provisions of Rule 57F(4) for the purpose of charging the same. At the time of clearance of the uncharged batteries to their job workers, they were debiting 10% of the value of the goods in their modvat account, in terms of the provisions of Rule 57F(6). Subsequently, on receipt of the charged batteries from their job workers, such debit entry made in their modvat account was being cancelled.2. The Revenue took a view that charging of the batteries does not amount to emergence of a new product and, as such, the appellant was not entitled to remove the uncharged batteries under Rule 5...

Maheswari Dye Chem. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT89Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad. The period of dispute is 1993-1994 to 1997-1998.2. The appellant M/s. Maheswari Dye Chem makes textile auxiliary chemicals. It was a proprietary firm owned by Smt. Sitadevi till December 1996. Thereafter it came to be owned by her husband and the firm came to be known as M/s. Durrent Chemicals. The department contends that M/s. Durrent Chemicals continued to engage itself in the same activity as that of its predecessor firm. Shri Rajesh Kedarmal Baheti the son of the Proprietor is a trader who purchased the products of the two above named firms. These are the appellants before us. In the impugned order the Commissioner demanded Rs. 22,16,106/- form M/s.Maheshwari under Section 11A(1), imposed and equal amount of penalty under Rule 173Q(1), read with Section 11AC, demanded interest under Section 11AB, demanded duty of Rs. 2,16,895/- from M/s. Durrent Chemicals (DCI) under the same sec...

Rehan Export and Sahran K. Mulla Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC75

1. Shri M.H. Patil, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of both the appellants submits that he is not challenging the confirmation of demand against them but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, prays for reduction in quantum of redemption fine and penalty.2. As per facts on record, the appellant imported the consignment of Polyester Fabrics claiming benefit of Notification No. 31/97-Cus., dated 1.4.97. The goods were examined, samples drawn and as a result of report of textile committee which were in favour of the appellant, the goods were cleared by extending the benefit of the notification.However, subsequently the consignment was re-examined by CIU in which it has been found that the goods were of different quality in terms of GSM textiles in comparison to earlier test samples. Accordingly, samples were again drawn and sent to new Customs House Laboratories for test. As a result of the report of GSM of imported fabrics was more than declared by the appellant.3. The ap...

T.P.i. India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC284

1. Appeal No. 3737/98-Mum has been filed against the order passed on the classification list No. 1/93-94, deciding classification of following items : (b) Bags made therefrom namely Kraft Lined bags, with or without liner.While Appear No. E/424/98-Mum, relates to the confirmation of the consequential demands for the period from April 1994 to Feb. 1995.1.2 The break-up of demand, item-wise as given by the appellant is as under :(a) HDPE Laminated Fabrics Rs. 14,931/-(b) Bags without liner Rs. 35,29,526/-(c) Bags with liner Rs. 73,60,546/- Total Rs. 1,09,05,003/- The appellants had classified the above goods under heading 59.09 and have paid duty at the rate of 15% ad val. as applicable at that time.Department has classified the above bags under sub-heading 3923.20 and the Laminated fabrics under Heading 39.20 attracting duty at the rate of 30% ad val., accordingly demands of differential duty of 15% ad val.have been worked on. (ii) Bags made therefrom namely Kraft Lined bags, with or w...

Laboratories Daffodil Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT250Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are absent. Accordingly, we have heard learned DR and gone through the impugned orders.2. Notification No. 48/77, dated 1-4-1977 exempts physician's samples of medicines. The appellants filed a classification list claiming the benefit under the said notification as regards the physician's samples.Objection was raised by the Revenue that said samples were rubber stamped with the words "Physician's sample, not for sale", which does not satisfy condition 3 of the notification. On the other hand, the appellants' contention was that the said notification only stipulated that the packing labels should be marked with the above word and does not lay down as to whether the marking is to be in printing or rubber stamp. The above contention was not accepted by the authorities below, who confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 17,671.50 against the appellants.3. After considering the issue involved, we find that condition 3 of the notification in question is only to the effect that ...