Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(12)LC779Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The captioned appeals arise out of the same adjudication order No.XVII (GC) 8-48/76 dated 12.3.1979 passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.) Bombay under which he held various contraventions of Gold Control Act as proved against the appellants. These appeals were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of under this common order. However, for the sake of clarity it is preferable to deal with them separately in accordance with the order in which they were argued personally before us.2. Taking up the appeals of M/s. Parimal Jewellers and its partner Shri C.B. Shah, Advocate Shri Desai pointed out that the Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.1976 issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise was addressed to M/s. Parimal Jewellers, Cambay, Gujarat. Though the partners of M/s.Parimal Jewellers were mentioned in the address, it was only the firm which was asked to show cause against the various contraventions as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. No partners of the firm including Shri C.B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1992)(59)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in original bearing No.KCH/Collr/10/90 dated 22-10-1990, holding the appellants' goods (life saving equipment - Homodialysing machines with spare parts), which were offered for export under S/Bs dated 2-12-1988 as liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Since the goods were allowed export provisionally, on execution of bond by the appellants covering the full value of the export goods, with a cash deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs and Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs, the Collector in the adjudication order, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs (goods having been already released provisionally and not being available for confiscation) and directed appropriation of the cash deposit, enforcement of bank guarantee and also directed the appellant to pay up the balance of Rs. 34 lakhs. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order.2. After hearing the elaborate arguments of Shri Habbu the learned advocate for the appellants and Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT309Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants imported "Geranium ART 2401". The classification claimed was under sub-heading 3302.10 of the CETA. The benefit of Notification Nos. 136/86-Cus. was claimed for the Customs duty and of No. 220/86-C.E. was claimed for the CVD. Benefit was denied by the Assistant Commissioner. The applicants approached the High Court. The High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to take a decision according to the law. The Assistant Commissioner in his order denied the benefit of both the notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the order, the present appeal and application are before us.2. Shri J.C. Patel, the ld. Advocate for the applicants relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Chandigarh Zinc Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E.-1995 (75) E.L.T. 103 which held that the benefit of a conditional notification issued under the Central Excise Act is available to goods imported for the purpose of additional duty of Customs. As regards the benefit of the Exemption Notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(117)LC307Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Sunrise Structural and Engg. Ltd. E/3284/02 (herein after referred to as Sunrise) M/s. KEC International Ltd. E/3185/02 (herein after referred to as KEC) M/s. Ramson Alloys (P) Ltd. E/3269/02 (herein after referred to as RAP) Shri Sanjay Agrawal E/3188/02 (Director of M/s. Sanvijay Re-rolling & Engg. Works Ltd) Shri Puranlal Agrawal E/3189/02 (Managing Director of M/s. Sanvijay Re-rolling & Engg. Works Ltd.) Shri K. Ramkumar E/3190/02 (Vice President of M/s. KEC Ltd.) Shri Tushar Deshpande E/3191/02 (Manager of M/s. KEC Ltd.) M/s. Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills E/3188/02 (herein after referred to as M/s. MSRM) Shri Janki Shah E/3183/02 (Director of M/s. Maharashtra Steel Rolling Mills) 2. Pursuant to a information that M/s. KEC Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Ltd. were availing 'unlawful' (SIC) deemed export benefits, and had indulged in availment/passing on of irregular MODVAT CREDIT were visited by the officers and enquiries launched which resulted in the notice. The impugned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
2. These 3 appeals are filed aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants being common in all the appeals and they raise common issue as such they are being disposed of by a common order including stay application No. C./Stay/1624/06. M/s.Shree Fats & Proteins Private Limited are engaged in the manufacture of edible oil & Vanaspati oil for which the appellants have been using various raw materials and inputs including crude palm oil. In the normal course of business, on 2.8.2001, the appellants have imported 500 MT of crude palm oil and cleared the same to the warehouse by filing In-Bond Bill of Entry Nos. 1781 and 1782. Thereafter, the appellants have cleared 250 MT of crude palm oil lying in bond on the basis of tariff value of US$ 337 PMT by paying appropriate duty. By Notification No. 52/2001 dated 9.10.2001, the Central Government reduced the tariff value of crude palm oil from US$ 337 to US$ 286 PMT. On 1.10.2001, the appellants h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. When these appeals were called out the appellant was not present inspite of notice sent to the appellant as well as to the advocate on record. From the record maintained I find that from 03/12/1998 the case came up for hearing on nine occasions. On a number of occasions neither the appellant nor any counsel was present. On certain occasions certain counsels appeared but sought adjournment. On 10/09/2000 Shri Shah sought adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel was not present. He also undertook to file a detailed paper book. The bench recorded that the paper book had not been filed and adjourned the proceedings. In these circumstances I do not find it necessary to adjourn the hearing of the appeals. I therefore proceed to decide the appeals on merits on perusal of the documents on record and after hearing Shri B.B. Sarkar for the department.2. In the order penalties were imposed on the appellant under the Customs Act, 1962 as well as under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(174)ELT25Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The referral bench doubted the correctness of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Alcobex Metals (P) Ltd. reported in 1992 (58) ELT. 108 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that as a consequence of the show cause notice being held to be without jurisdiction for the purposes of demand of duty, having been issued by an officer other than the Commissioner, under the proviso to Section 11-A, the entire proceedings for other purposes of imposition of penalty and confiscation would also be without jurisdiction. The referral Bench was of the view that a combined notice having been issued under two different provisions of law for recovery of duty under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and for confiscation and levy of penalty under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of Central Excise Act, 1944, even though part of the notice has been issued without jurisdiction, the other part could survive having been issued by an officer having jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1.1 The appellant was issued notice seeking show cause as to why duty should not be determined under the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the erection and installation charges, recovered from the customers, for erection and commissioning of 'Curtain walls', commissioned at the site of the customers building.1.2 The appellant is an assessee, engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium components for Curtain Walls, structural glazing Aluminium Doors & Windows falling under Chapter 76 of CETA 1985. Besides manufacturing and supplying/selling the goods, they also contract to undertake, to execute, from a different premises, erection and installation at site of the "Curtain Walls" from components manufactured by them. The notice issued alleged that Excise Duty is chargeable with reference to Transaction Value, with effect from 1.7.2000, and in terms, as defined Under Section 4(3)(d) of the Act, it appears, that the term Transaction Value would include any amount i.e.recovered from the customers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(209)ELT57Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants are a registered company and an assessee, under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and various other persons who were employees of the assessee company and the Central Excise Department. They are aggrieved by a common order of denial of credit availed by the assessee of duty paid on capital goods received, found to be taken wrongly and it is to be recovered with consequent penalties under Section 11AC read with Rule 57U(6), confiscation of land building, plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2)(a) and redemption thereof on a fine of Rs. 4 crores along with interest and individual consolidated penalties under Rules 209A, 210 & 226 have been arrived on employees, of the assessee and under Rules 209A & 210 on the Central Excise Officers appellants herein.1.2 Certain capital goods duty paid, were recovered in the factory premises on eligible documents and installed in the factory as they were to be used in the manufacture of dutiable final products is not in dispute.1.3 The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. After examining the records and hearing both sides we find that, in this appeal of the Revenue, the short question to be considered is whether the activity of labeling, by the respondent, of the goods imported by them would amount to manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act. The lower appellate authority held that the said activity would not amount to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the CETA schedule and accordingly set aside the demand of duty raised on the assessee by the original authority. In the present appeal, the appellant has inter alia referred to the Tribunal’s order No.376/2003-NB(B) reported as German Remedies Ltd., Vs. CCE, Mumbai (2003 (162) ELT 429 (Tri-Del.). The appellant states that the said order of the Tribunal was not accepted by the Board and accordingly a civil appeal was filed there-against before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The ld. Counsel for the respondent at this juncture points out that...
Tag this Judgment!