Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 23-7-1998 praying for setting aside the same, with deemed suitable relief.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant imported a consignment of Teletherapy unit - Theratron 980C valued at Rs. 45,38,597 (assessable value) and filed Bill of Entry No. 9293/23-8-1989 claiming duty free clearance under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 by furnishing NMIC and CDEC No. NMI/ENGG/389/88/506, dated 23-8-1989 and Z-37011/ 16/88-MG, dated 21-10-1988. The goods were allowed clearance without payment of duty. Department found that the appellant failed to produce installation certificate in terms of para 4(iii) of the notification, and so goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of Customs Act. Jurisdictional authority was requested to seize the same. It was found by it (jurisdictional authority) that the imported goods was found in the treatment room of the Importer's premises. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT495Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by M/s. Mistry Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mahesh J. Mistry against the impugned Order No. 42/MP/1993, dated 6-12-1993 praying for setting aside the same and for such other relief as deemed fit.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants have a factory at GIDC Saregaon Industrial Estate, Bhilad near Vapi in Balsar district in the state of Gujarat in a backward area where the transportation and infrastructure facilities are very poor. They are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes...76.12 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, a small scale industrial unit and availing general exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 and holding L-4 Central Excise Licence. On 30-3-1990, the officers of the Central Excise Preventive unit at Vapi visited the factory and conducted search operations and seized the documents, registers, papers and records on 30th and 31st May, 1990. The statutory records for the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(151)ELT610Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal revolves around interpretation of Note 6 to Chapter 34, Note 3 to Chapter 35 and Note 5 to Chapter 38 of the Tariff. Each of the notes which are identically worded reads thus - "In relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk Backs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to "manufacture"." 2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that by application of these notes, the activities undertaken by the appellant before us, must be deemed to be manufacture, and demanded duty and imposed penalty on the appellant.3. The appellant is a trader in textile chemicals. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Commissioner's order narrate the activities of the appellant, which are under consideration before us, as follows : "2. M/s. TC procures the orders from the customers through their marketing staff speci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the classification of "Tiger Balm", manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under CET Sub-heading 3003.39 as a Ayurvedic medicament, attracting duty at the rate of 8%, as claimed by the manufacturers and upheld by the Commissioner, or under GET Sub-heading 3003.10 as F or P medicaments other than those medicines which are exclusively Ayurvedic...attracting duty at the rate of 15% for certain period and 16% thereafter, as contended by the Revenue. The period in dispute is December 1996 to February 2000.2. According to the Revenue the assessee has wrongly claimed (he-product as Ayurvedic Medicine for the reason that the product owed its origin to Chinese traditional medicine, and the formulations, brand name, logo, product goodwill etc. had been received under licence from M/s. Haw Par Healthcare Ltd. Singapore for exclusive manufacture, marketing and sale in India. The Singapore company is also the proprietary owner of the goods...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1.1 The Appellants are job workers, manufacturing grease from the raw materials and packing materials supplied by M/s Tide Water Oil Co.India Ltd. They filed necessary price lists under Rule 173C of CER 1944, duly supported by independent Charted Accountants certificates showing the landed cost of raw materials and packing materials in their factory and the job charges, and paid excise duty on such cost +job charges basis.However, the department, in the proceedings before us seeks to levy excise duty on the selling price of M/s Tide Water Oil Co. India Ltd. ii) that the appellants are related persons of Tide Water within the meaning of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act; iii) that there is any flow back of financial consideration from Tide Water; i) suppression of fact as the appellants have "special relationship" with Tide Water Oil Co., and that they further suppressed the wholesale price at which the said Tide Water Oil Company sold the products. ii) the Appellants have deliberately, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)LC585Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order in Original No. 21/MP/89, dated 9-5-1989 passed by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise, Vadodara.2. The Appellants are engaged in manufacturing/producing man-made fabrics falling under T.I. 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and hold L-4 licence. On 23-8-1984 the officers of the Central Excise (Preventive) Collec-torate visited the factory premises of the Appellants and during the same noticed certain quantity of fully manufactured man-made fabrics duly packed and in marketable condition at various places like Bonded Store Room, Folding and Packing Section, without being entered into statutory registers. It was also reportedly noticed that the Appellants were not even maintaining lot Register prescribed by the Baroda Collectorate vide Notification No. 1/75 dated 4-1-1975. The officers, therefore, seized the said unaccounted stock but released the same subsequently on execution of B-ll Bond by the Appellants. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)(15)ECC189
1. M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. have filed this appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order No.A-1236/B-II-137/82 dated 5-8-1982 [F. No. V-2(15A) 1659/79] passed by the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay under which he confirmed the order No. V (15A) 2-3/77/7631 dated 14-8-1979 of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Division T demanding duty amounting to Rs. 5,49,925.04 under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd., Bhandup, Bombay-78.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. are manufacturers of paints and varnishes and for the manufacture of these items they require resins which they procure either from the market or by direct import from abroad. M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd, also manufacture certain types of synthetic resins from the materials purchased locally or imported which are classifiable under item 15A of the central excise tariff. They had obtained per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC648Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited filed a revision application dated 12-9-1978 under old Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P and is to be treated as an appeal before us. The appellants pray for setting aside the demand for Rs. 7,92,405.77 raised by the Assistant Collector of 'Central Excise, Goa, for availing of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Advocate for the appellants stated that the appellants were manufacturing fertilisers under the brand name 'Sampurna' in which they were using1 imported Muriate of Potash as raw material. The import of Muriate of Potash was canalised through M/s. Indian Potash Limited, and they were selling the same to all consumers including the appellants at the pooled price. The pooled price did not give particulars of the countervailing duty paid by M/s. Indian Potash Limited on Muriate of Potash. Towards the end of 1975-7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(10)ECC71
1. The appeal arises out of the order bearing No. M-709/TH-114/85 dated 2-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The cross objections are not cross objections in the eyes of law. No relief, as such, is claimed. It contains the arguments of the Respondent in the above appeal as to why the appeal should not be allowed. As a matter of fact, Shri Nariman did not contend that cross-objections filed by the Respondent in the appeal are cross-objections in the eyes of law, or that any order is required to be passed on the cross objections.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as under:- The Respondent M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (for short The Reliance) have their factory at Patelganga, District Raigad, Maharashtra holding a Central Excise Licence L-4 dated 6-7-1982 for the manufacture of polyester filament yarn falling under Tariff Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(76)LC77Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals raise a common issue, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. Appeal No. E/2738/89 has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 25.11.1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals) rejecting the claim of classification of the product "Chassis with Cowl" under sub-heading No. 8706.40 i.e. under the description chassis fitted with engine or the motor vehicles for the transport of goods. The department on subsequent verification after the classification list had been confirmed, noticed that the vehicle was not a motor vehicle for transport of goods but it was cleared for manufacture of passenger type of vehicles and hence on the basis of investigation and after carrying out detailed adjudication the lower authorities confirmed the classification under sub-heading No. 8706.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. In this case the show cause notice was issued on 28.8.1986, which was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector by his order dt.6.2.1987 and has al...
Tag this Judgment!