Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-01-2005
1. M/s I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as IGPL for short) are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of "Phthalic Anhydride" falling under Chapter Sub Heading 2917.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also permitted to sell certain quantities of their final product in the Domestic Tariff Area (hereinafter referred to as DTA for short) by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai in terms of the Exim Policy. They are manufacturing and clearing the said goods to DTA on payment of concessional rate of duty in terms of Serial No. 3 to Notification 23/03-CE dated 31.3.2003 (earlier Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997).2. The notification prescribed that the goods cleared to DTA would be exempted as per rates prescribed therein subject to the condition that the said goods sold in DTA were only manufactured out of indegenuous raw materials. The benefit is not eligible if the same is manufactured out of imported and indigenous raw materials.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-30-2005
1.1. The bunch of appeals have been filed against an order of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Gujarat, Ahmedabad dated 28.2.2001 ordering the confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962, of 500 Gold Bars bearing Foreign Companies marks and imposed penalties under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 as follows:(1) Shri Vijaya Dasrathbhai Patel Proprietor Rs. 50,00,000/- of M/s. Paras Bullion, Ahmedabad. (Rupees fifty lakhs only)(2) Shri Shailesh Ratilal Patel Proprietor Rs. 50,00,000/- of M/s. S.K Jewellers, Ahmedabad (Rupees fifty lakhs only)(3) Shri Devang Amrutlal Patel Rs. 50,000/- Proprietor of M/s. Patel Bullion, Ahmedabad (Rupees fifty thousand only)(4) Shri Natubhai Babubhai Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(5) Shri Jashwant Kanjibhai Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(6) Shri Arvindhvai Kantilal Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(7) Shri Bhikhabhai Tulsibhai Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(8) Smt. Rasilaben Harshadbhai R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-29-2005
2. The applicants were manufacturers of plywood falling under erstwhile item 16B of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and thereafter under Chapter 44 of the New Tariff. The appellants were availing pro-forma credit under Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 in respect of duty paid veneers, falling under erstwhile Item 68 and thereafter under Chapter 44 of the Tariff, used in the manufacture of Plywood up to 28-2-1986. The Central Government issued Notification No.225/86 dated 3-4-1986, which was amended by the Notification No.338/86, dated 11-6-1986. The appellants were having huge quantity or duty paid veneers in stock and were eligible to take set off of duty paid on veneers, which was in stock on 11-6-1986. The veneers were received from 3-3-1986 to 5-6-1998.3. The appellants filed refund claim for a sum of Rs. 1,08,675.19, which was rejected by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Hubli. The appellants filed appeal against the said order, which was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-08-2005
Reported in : (2005)(102)ECC499
1.2 (a) Respondents imported, at Sikka Port, Gujarat, certain equipments for use in the refinery premises spread over a large area, to assist erection of Heavy Equipment of the refinery being set up.They filed a Bill of Entry No. F-116 dated 31.1.98 declaring the goods, sought for home clearance as The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally on 21.2.1998 and the goods as declared were granted the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus.dated 1.3.1997 as amended by Notification No. 55/97-Cus. dated 13.6.1997.(b) Bill of Entry was finally assessed on 24.12.99 classifying Heady Duty Platform Ringer Crane with spares in Chapter 8426.19 and 8 Nos.SPMTS with 6 Axle and with 5 power packs in Chapter sub-heading No.8704.90 enhancing the value of Platform Ringer Crane and SPMTS and denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 11 /97 as amended by Notification No. 55/97.(c) Respondent preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad.(d) Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-06-2005
Reported in : (2006)(193)ELT440Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants are a registered company, having an EOU and Domestic Supply unit and its Jt. Managing Director.1.2 (a) As an 100% EOU with imported Capital Goods, they are engaged in the manufacture and export of Down hole drilling equipments used for oil & gas exploration and hold the necessary Approvals as EOU & licencees under the Custom Warehousing provisions (Section 58 and Section 65). They availed the benefit of notification 1/95-C.E. as amended & 13/81-Cus. in respect of Indian & foreign raw materials, procured duty free, required for manufacture of the final products.(b) Some time in 1996, to cater the buyers in the domestic market as well as for carrying out repairs in respect of the drilling pipes received, they started the Domestic Tariff Unit (herein after referred to as DSU for short) adjacent to the EOU with its own set of Capital Goods manufacturing using locally procured duty paid material.1.3 Pursuant to specific intelligence, that they were evading Cus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : May-27-2005
Reported in : (2005)(101)ECC649
1. M/s Bee Internature (sic, International) proprietor M/s Bee Electronic Machine Ltd. (herein after referred to as Central Excise Act, 1944 assessee, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 'Automatic Plain Paper Copier' also hold licences under Sections 59 & 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. (i) Imports made pursuant to the agreements entered and the santious granted of various raw material and components claiming the benefit of Notification 13/81 Cus dt 9.2.81 as amended and subsequent Notification dt 53/97-Cus dt 3.6.97 the EOU had also procured certain raw material and components of indigenous sources under benefit of Central Excise Act, 1944 Notification Nos. 123/81-CE dt 2.6.81 & 57/94-CE dt 1.3.94 & 1195-CE dt 4.1.95 as amended. (ii) the unit had commenced production from 1.6.90 & had made physical export only for 4 years i.e. 1990-1991 to 94-95 with value addition, instead of 10 years as per the letter of intent of Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-08-2005
Reported in : (2005)(189)ELT329Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows :- 1.1 Appellant manufactures copper cathodes, copper rods and coils falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The price of copper cathodes / rods that the appellant sells locally depends upon the international prices of copper, which are published in bulletins of the London Metal Exchange (LME). Consistent with the practice in the industry in the course of a month, are priced with reference to the average LME price of copper during that particular month. Since such an average is ascertainable only at the end of the month. They have been following a policy of issuing a provisional invoice at the time of clearance of goods wherein the price declared is 95% of the previous month's average LME price. On the last day of the month, when the average price for that month becomes known, a final price circular is issued and the differential price payable or receivable for the clear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-2005
Reported in : (2005)(101)ECC155
1. The appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore wherein he demanded duty and imposed penalty: (a) Duty was demanded under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 amounting to Rs. 2,08,47,542/- towards A, Central Excise duty, allegedly payable on the Ready Made Garments (RMG for short) during the period from 1.5.2001 to 31.1.2003; (b) penalty imposed of Rs. 2,08,47,542/- under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944; (c) penalty imposed of Rs. 21,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central excise (No 2) Rules 200 I/Central Excise Rules, 2002, and (d) it was ordered to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground that the imported RMG were subjected to 'refinishing work' which would amount to manufacture as per Chapter Note. Since they were not cleared on payment of Central Excise duty, demands were confirmed by invoking the larger period of limitation.2. Brief facts of the case, r...
Tag this Judgment!