Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(99)ELT603Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Customs, Bombay has filed this appeal on a direction from the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to apply before the Tribunal for determining the propriety and correctness of an adjudication order dated 26-10-1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay in the case of import of 26.728 M.T. of Prime Seamless Carbon Steel Pipes valued at Rs. 1,58,974/- CIF. The operative portion of the Impugned order of the Addl. Collector reads as under : "The issue involved in this case is whether the importers M/s. Pradip Smithy and Engineering Works, Kudal, will qualify for clearance of the goods imported i.e. steel pipes, as Actual User under OGL Appendix 6, list 8 part (I) Item No. 523 of Policy 1985-88. The importers are holding a permanent SSI Registration certificate No. 11/20/00043/PMT/SSI, dated 30-1-1984 wherein manufacturing/processing activity mentioned are 'Agricultural Implements and Fabrication'. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(137)ELT843Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five applications for rectification of mistake relate to Tribunal's final order No. C-II/716 to 722/2000/WZB dated 9/3/2000. It is appear that in pursuance of this order the Customs have taken steps to attach the properties of the applicants. Five stay applications have been filed requesting stay of operation of the order of attachment, etc. pending disposal of the applications for rectification of mistake.On hearing Shri V. Sridharan, advocate appearing along with Shri Prakash Shah, advocate and Gajendra Jain, Chartered Accountant the rectification applications were taken up for disposal.2. The facts, in brief, leading to the cited order of the Tribunal are as follows.3. Certain irregularities were noticed by the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in the imports and Exports in the import made by M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Limited. A show cause notice was issued. In his order dated 14/11/1986 the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports imposed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(139)ELT366Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. Among these are rifampicin, ethambutol, isoniazid and pyrazinamide. Each of these medicaments finds use in the treatment of tuberculosis. All of them, except rifampicin, were exempted by entry 1 of the table to notification 75/94 (September 1994 to September 1999). The entry exempted from duty all formulations based on the list of bulk drugs specified in the first schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 as amended from time to time. These three were listed as bulk, to be used in the National Tuberculosis Eradication Programme, in the first schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order. Rifampicin at the relevant time was partially exempted from duty by notification 30/88.2. Tuberculosis patients derive greater benefit from treatment by combination of the drugs used than from treatment by a single medicine.The Office Memorandum dated 4.7.1995 of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of Government of India expl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(162)ELT572Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Respondents/assessees are engaged in the manufacture of Vicco Vajradanti (Powder), Vicco Vajradanti (Paste), Vicco Turmeric Skin Cream & Vicco Vajradanti Sugar Free. Under the Central Excise Tariff which existed prior to 28.2.86, the department had classified the products as under: (1) Vicco Vajradanti (powder & paste) under Tariff Item 14F.F. as Tooth Paste (2) Vicco Turmeric Skin Cream under T.I. 14F as Cosmetic and Toilet preparations.2. As against this, the assessees claimed that they were covered by exclusion clause in T.I. 14E i.e. P & P medicines excluding those medicines which were exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathic. Since the claim of the assessees was not accepted by the Central Excise Department, the assessees filed a Civil Suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. On 6.5.82, the Ld. Civil Judge rejected the suit holding that the products are Ayurvedic medicinal preparations. The Union of India challenged the judgment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The applications for stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalties arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Adjudication), Mumbai, who in the impugned order imposed penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act on various persons/companies/firms concerned with diversion of imported goods cleared duty free.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Baroda Synthetics Ltd. (BSL) cleared 320.819 MT of polyester filament yam (PFY) duty free under DEEC scheme. M/s. BSL purchased the said quantity from M/s.Ramgopal Polytex Ltd., M/s. Ramgopal Textiles Ltd., M/s. Krystal Yarn Processors and M/s. Asima Denim International, on high seat-sale and cleared the goods through customs. Investigation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence allegedly revealed that M/s. BSL diverted the imported goods into domestic tariff area without fulfilling the export obligation thus rendering the goods liable for confiscation. The consignment was handled by M/s. Shree Ganesh Shipping Services...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(178)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts of the case are that vide an order dt. April 1995 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi, changed the classification list filed by the respondents herein in regards to waste material by classifying under Chapter Heading 85.44, 74.04, and directed the respondents to pay duty as per the tariff duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner, in appeal before the Tribunal, the impugned order has set aside holding that the scrap is not excisable commodity and it had not been specified in the Central Excise Tariff. On this basis a claim for refund of differential duty of Rs. 31,14,949/- paid under protest on higher rate of duty was directed. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the grounds inter alia that the assessee had availed modvat credit on their inputs which is ultimately went into the waste and scrap cleared on payment of duty while there is no evidence regarding reversal of such modvat credit, and even i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order upheld the order of the lower authority.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of drugs falling under falling under Chapters 28 and 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of stock taking of finished excisable goods manufactured by the appellant it was found that several quantities of goods as mentioned in the show cause notice were found in excess of the balance shown in the statutory records, i.e. RG-1 register. The explanation given for such non-accountal of the goods was that it is due to mistake on the part of staff employed by the appellant. The appellant admitted the mistake. The said goods were seized by the department. The lower adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods not so accounted, imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q(i) and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules and also imposed a penalty ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Ajit India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "assessee") are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium doors and windows, curtain walls and glazed windows falling under chapter heading 7610.90 of Central Excise Tariff.An intelligence was gathered that the said assessee was indulging in evasion of central excise duty by misdeclaring that they are manufacturing only aluminium doors and window frames whereas they received orders from various customers for the manufacture and supply of curtain walls, glazed windows, aluminium doors and windows, and not only for frames.2. It was found that the assesses fabricated aluminium window frames in the case of openable windows (R-series windows) and aluminium channels for sliding windows, and cleared the same in a dismantled condition/knocked down condition from their factory premises. The glass panes for these windows/doors were purchased and sent directly to the site where all these parts we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(180)ELT26Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents manufacture bulk drugs/chemicals falling under Chapter No. 28 & 29 of CETA 1985. It all started with the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 3,24,990/- by the Assistant Commissioner. The matter travelled upto the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its Order No. C-I/900/2002-WZB, dated 26-3-2002 set aside the order of the lower appellate authority except to the extent of Rs. 2623/-. The appellant claimed the consequential refund. It was sanctioned. The appellant thereupon claimed refund of interest on the amount paid by him. This was denied by the lower original authority. In appeal, the Commissioner (A) held that the claim for refund of interest has to be sanctioned. He set aside the lower authority's order. Now the Revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.3. The Revenue's grounds are that the respondents should not have paid the interest by deb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(190)ELT362Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles ( 2 wheelers & 3 wheelers) falling under Chapter sub-heading 877 and 8703 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. The company was availing modvat credit on inputs such as Aluminium ingots. It was clearing the Aluminium Ingots under rule 57F(4) to the job workers for manufacture of Aluminium castings. The goods removed under 57F(4) chalans were received back after the job work was completed. The weight of the castings thus received did not tally with the weight of the Aluminium ingots sent under rule 57F(4) because the appellant did not receive the waste and scrap from the job worker. The allegation of the department is that when inputs are sent under rule 57F(4) as manufacturer is supposed to receive back any waste and scrap which arises in the manufacture of goods in a job workers hands. Since no evidence has been put forth by the appellant company that such waste and scrap has suffered duty in the hands of the jo...
Tag this Judgment!