Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-16-1999
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT241Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This batch of 17 appeals arises out of the common order of the Commissioner of Customs, Sahar International Airport.2. The issues involved are the same. Similar arguments were made by the Counsels appearing for the parties. These 17 appeals are therefore being disposed off vide this common order.3. The appellants are public corporations engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. In all cases the appellants entered into technical collaborations with leading manufacturers in their own fields abroad.The agreements provided for exchange of technology in the form of supply of know-how, supply of drawings and designs on media, training of personnel staff and similar other activities. As a part of fulfilment of this contract, the contracting parties abroad, from time to time sent drawings, designs etc. In the case of M/s. Videocon, these drawings etc. were imported by hand of one Mr. Kato. In all other cases the drawings etc. were imported through professional couriers, or by post par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-13-1999
Reported in : (1999)LC845Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five appeals arise out of the same impugned order and are, therefore, taken up together for disposal.2. M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. the present appellants manufacture lubricating oil (automotive oil). The goods are cleared in four different ways :- (1) packed in 20 Itrs & 210 Itrs containers and sent to wholesale dealer; (2) packed in 20 Itrs & 210 Itrs containers and sent to their depots on stock transfer; (4) cleared in bulk in tankers to M/s. Unique Packers, job workers, who repack the bulk oil in tins of 5 Itrs., 1 Itr and .5 ltr capacity and despatch them to the depots of M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. from where they are sold.3. The dispute in the present appeals relates to (4) above. Sometime ago, such oil in bulk was sent by the appellants to M/s. Unique Packers under the procedure prescribed in Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the job workers would return the lubricating oil packed in smaller containers to M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. M/s. Savita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : May-20-1999
Reported in : (1999)(85)LC683Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dt. 28.1.1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, in order No. CAC/No. 25/94 CAC. By this order, the Learned Collector held that the 'Haemodialysers' (hereinafter referred to as goods) imported under Bill of Entry No. 6078 dt. 9.10.1988 are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dt. 22.9.1981. He held the goods to be prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 2(33) and their export out of India, as not permissible. Since the goods had been exported out of India and not used for home consumption, they had become liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He held that by their actions, the goods are liable for confiscation and also they are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Learned Collector passed the final orders in these terms. (a) Benefit of exemption Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dt. 22.9.1981 shall be denied. The goods shall be as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-1999
Reported in : (1999)(84)LC150Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are filed against the common order-in-original.Therefore, these are being taken up together. The Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are processors of cotton fabrics and were engaged in the processes like mercerising, bleaching and stentering without the aid of power. The respondents were availing exemption under notification no. 130/82-CE dated 20.4.1982.The officers of the Revenue visited the premises of the respondents and found that respondents were using kiers for boiling the chemicals for treating the cotton fabrics. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents stating therein that the bleaching process was carried out in the kiers. Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of notification no. 130/82-CE. After adjudication, the impugned order was passed and in the impugned order, the ld. Collector held that the respondents merel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-1999
Reported in : (1999)(85)LC181Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by the party against the above captioned impugned order dated 25.5.1993 of the respondent praying for setting aside the same and for such other orders as deemed fit.1.1. The facts of the case are that on a specific information that contraband goods of foreign origin such as VCR, VCP, TV etc. are being stored in specific flats in Hajibaug building near State Bank of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vakola, Santacruz (E)t Mumbai-55, officers of the Head quarter Preventive section of Central Excise Collectorate, Mumbai-I visited on 21.10.1989 and searched the flat no. 12A, 14 and 17 on 3rd floor of the said building. Smt. Mitubhai Hiren wife of Shri Shubhkiran Hiren was staying in flat no. 17. On enquiry she stated that the appellant Roshanlal Jain had requested her husband to store some VCR/VCPs in her house. On the search of the said flat, 50 VCR and VCPs of different models of foreign origin were found. They were collectively worth Rs. 5',56,000/-. The appellant...
Tag this Judgment!