Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(119)ECC222
1. The brief facts of the case that the appellants M/s Hotel Leela Venture filed a bill of entry for 168 units declared as Daikin Air Heat Pumps for space heating and space cooling application and claimed assessment under Chapter Heading 841868 of the Customs Tariff read with Notification 30/88 dated 01.03.1988 as amended. They also produced three additional licenses for clearances of the goods. The goods were examined on percentage basis and appeared to be air-conditioning machines and not heat pumps and on importer's request a 100% examination was carried out and as per the re-examination report the units imported by them were held to be air-conditioning machines classifiable under Chapter Heading 8415 without benefit of Notification 30/88. For the purpose of countervailing duty also they appear to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 8415 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. In view of this a show cause notice was issued seeking to classify goods under Chapter Heading 8415 denying exem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC431
1. The issue referred to this bench is whether the goods which are cleared by 100% EOU clandestinely and without any permission are eligible to full exemption under Notification No. 125/84-CE and whether such goods are to be assessed under the provision of main Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act or under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act as it has been brought to our notice that there are conflicting decision on the same in the case of Modern Denim Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T.1174 (Tri.-Mumbai) and in the case of Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. C.C. & C.E., Aurangabad 2. The learned advocate for the appellants took us through the provision of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act which reads as under: SECTION 3. Duties specified in the first schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to be levied. - (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.- (a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT896Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ-697/B.III/94, dated 5-12-1994 whereunder he set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Belapur Divn. I and granted the refund application filed by the respondent before us and the appellant before him.2. The respondent before us is a claimant of a refund claim of Rs. 1,48,830/- claiming the said amount to have been excess excise duty borne by them on the goods viz. "super centrifuge" purchased by them from M/s. Pen-wait India Ltd. (manufacturers of the said goods) on payment of Central Excise duty @ 15% ad valorem vide GP-1 No. 32, dated 16-9-1992. The aforesaid refund was claimed by the respondent purchaser on the ground that the goods were partially exempted under Notification No. 78/90, dated 20-3-1990 and were chargeable to concessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem, if the same were intended for pollut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)10STJ57CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant M/s Mckinsey India, a branch of Mckinsey, U.S.A., is engaged in providing management consultancy services to its various clients in India. They have entered into agreement with clients, prior to commencing any consignments/engagements for provision of detailed strategic consulting service and for all the project undertaken by them during the period October 1998 to March 2003 numerous expenses including Out of Pocket Expenses (OPE) for each project were incurred by them and the same were recovered from the clients.2. Since value of taxable services in relation to the service provided by management consultant to the clients is gross amount charged by such consultant from the clients for services rendered in connection with the management of any organization in any manner, it was felt that the entire amount was chargeable to service tax. However, certain OPE were considered as not liable to service tax i.e. one relating to traveling, boarding and lodging expenses, provid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(122)ECC193
1. All the above appeals arise out of separate Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai involving common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The issue relates to levy of anti dumping duty on imports of vitrified/porcelain tiles from China/UAE under the provisions of Notification No. 73/03 Cus dated 1.5.03.3. By Notification No. 50/02-Cus dated 2.5.02, anti dumping duty was imposed in respect of vitrified/porcelain tiles exported /originating from China/UAE, and the levy was effected upto and inclusive of the 1^st day of November, 2002. M/s. Harsh International and Abhinav Ceramic imported one consignment of tiles prior to 1.11.02 while all the other appellants imported tiles subsequent to 1.11.02 and no imports subsequent to 1.5.03 took place by any of the appellants.Notification No. 50/02-Cus was issued by the Central Government pursuant to the provisional findings dated 3.12.2001 of the Designated Authority in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
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
Reported in : (2003)(160)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) and they had manufactured TOPs falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They stopped the manufacturing activity w.e.f. 25-4-1994 and they also stopped the exports from July, 1994. For manufacture and export of these goods, they had imported capital goods during the period from May, 1990 to June, 1992 by availing the exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-81 as amended. The appellants had also executed a Bond with the Customs authorities and had given an undertaking to the effect that the Unit having failed to carry out their export obligation, is liable to pay duty on the capital goods which were brought without payment of duty, availing exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. available to a 100% EOU. Therefore, they were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 14-2-1996 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division III...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
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!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(123)ECC200
1. All these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.03-05/1995 dt. 25.1.1995.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the classification of the product "PVC Corrugated roofing sheets, PVC rigid plain sheets", etc. The assessee was classifying the said products under Chapter 84 while it is the contention of the Revenue that the said product will fall under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show cause notice dt. 3.3.1994 was issued to the appellant for confirmation of demand of the differential duty and also for confiscation of the excisable goods which were found unaccounted in the factory premises during the visit of the officers. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner and vide his order-in-original dt. 15.2.1995 he came to the following conclusion. In view of my above findings I find that 3519.249 kgs. out of 16745 Kgs. seized goods on 22.9.93 in form of PVC sheets which were not accounted for in RG-1 register ...
Tag this Judgment!