Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1193DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 by the Asstt. Collector (Legal) Central Excise, Baroda, against the order No. A-1735/BD-691/82, dated 4-11-1982 of the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay under which the respondent's appeal for refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 15,808/- was allowed. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise (Legal) Baroda has been authorised by the Collector of Central Excise Baroda to file the present appeal. The respondents in the present appeal M/s. Power Build Ltd. have also filed a cross objection against the same order dated 4-11-1982 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. Hence, both the appeal and the cross-objection have been heard together for the purpose of passing a common order.2. Shri Pattekar on behalf of the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda has explained the facts of the case and argued that the order dated 4-11-1982 of the Collector of Central E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1201DTri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Rajabali Hussain Merchant has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the Order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals; Bombay vide Order No. S/49-23/82 GC (Ahmedabad) dated 19.11.82, registered with the registry vide G.C. Bom) A. No. 15 of 1983. Shri Dinkarrai R. Dhorde had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal being aggrieved from the Order No. S/49-25,82 GC Ahmedabad) dated 9.11.82 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 24.10.1977, on the basis of an information, the officers of Customs Division, Bhavnagar had visited Room No. 304 of Shri Shakti Guest House, Mali Tehra, Bhavnagar and found S/Shri Rajabali Hussain Merchant and Dinkerrai Ramchhoddas Dhorde to be in occupancy of the said room and had conducted search in presence of three independent witnesses, as a result of which they recovered four pieces of primary gold weighing 576.-00 gms. of 23 carats of purity valued at Rs. i6,500/- secreted in a specially...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1198DTri(Mum.)bai
1. These are 9 appeals filed under Section 129-A of the Customs Act by the appellants against the Orders of the lower authorities under which penalties have been levied on the appellants under Section 116 of the Customs Act for not accounting for the manifested cargo imported by the ships under their agency. Though the facts of each case difer, the principle underlining the appeal is the same and hence the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of under this common order, in these cases shortages were reported against the manifested items by the Bombay Port Trust's out-turn reports of the respective vessels or they were discovered on survey held by the consignees. In either case the liability of the appellants under Section 116 was enforced and penalties levied and confirmed under the respective orders of the lower authorities. In the appeals the arguments put for ward by the appellants are that the cargoes imported in all the cases were containerised and the containers we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC(1997)DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act filed by Embarkation Hq. Bombay, requesting for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 15,367.20 paid on one case containing motor vehicle parts covered by Bill of entry C 6214 dated 27/28.2.78.' The reason for claiming the refund is that the case in question was not traced and hence it could not be cleared under the aforesaid Bill of entry. The appellants have now submitted a certificate under Section 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 from Deputy Manager, Indira Dock, Bombay certifying that one case said to contain motor vehicle parts manifested at Item No. G-53 ex. s.s. State of Meghalay by IGM. No. 2614 of 23.2.78 was physically forwarded on 17.3.78 but was missing. The appellants, therefore, request for refund of duty paid on this case. - 2. The Senior departmental representative has opposed the submissions of the appellants. He has pointed out that the earlier claim of the appellants was for refu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)(14)ELT1947Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, filed by the Kolhapur Steel Ltd., against the Order No.V(26)15-112/ADJ/81/354 dated 22-9-82 of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, ordering levy of duty amounting to Rs. 78,685.00/- (Basic) and Rs. 47.122.25/- (Special) on 1939.100 M.T. of scrap, runners and risers alleged to have been cleared clandestine during the period 9-4-79 to 4-6-81 and levying penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for being involved in the aforesaid offence. Consultant, Shri N.D. Khosla, who appeared for the appellants has explained how the skull scrap, runners and risers etc. arise out of the manufacture of steel ingots in the factory of the appellants. He has stated that the scrap thus produced is utilised again and again in the manufacture of steel ingots and this practice had been going on for the past several years. The main contention advanced by the appellants is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1886DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Assistant Collector (Technical) of the office of the Collector of Central Excise Baroda has filed this appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the order No.V-2(19)1172/82 dated 22-6-1982 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Collector of Central Excise of Baroda has authorised the Assistant Collector concerned to file this appeal. The respondent in the appeal M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad have filed a cross objection in this case also. Therefore, both the appeals and cross-objections are being considered and decided simultaneously.2. The main point taken up in the appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is that Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 which added Explanation III to Notification No. 226/77, dated 15-7-1977 should have the effect from the date of the issue and not retrospectively. The effect of the Notification No. 7/78, dated 17-1-1978 was that it permitted the department to calculate the average...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC2094DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., hereinafter referred as the appellant, filed a revision application" under Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, shortly referred as the Act, against the Order No. V(1)2-8/75/6011 dated 6.3.76 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The related Order of Adjudication was made on 14.3.1975 (bearing No. 782/75) by the Superintendent of Central Excise, A.G. Karad. The revision application has been transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provision of Section 35-P of the Act, to be disposed of as appeal. In compliance to hearing notice, Shri B.D. Deshmukh, Advocate, appeared for the appellant and for the Revenue we had the assistance of Shri Hem Prakash: Junior Departmental Representative.2. The only contention in the appeal is that the average production of the appellant for the period October-November 1974 be ordered to be worked out on the basis of the production of all the preceding five sugar years i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC(1973)DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur has filed an appeal against Order No. S/49-94/81 GC (Nagpur) dated the 10th day of November, 1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 7-4-1981, Preventive Officers, Amravati Division, during the course of checking of the accounts and stock of the respondent found that he was in possession of primary gold weighing 592.200 gms. He had a gold smith's licence. As per provisions of Section 42(ii) a goldsmith can have 300 gms. and thus the respondent had 292.200 gms. gold in excess as per the version of the appellant. A show cause notice dated 22-7-81 was issued to the respondent to show cause why penal action should not be taken on him under Section 74 of the Act and why the seized gold should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Act. Respondent had filed a reply.The officers bad asked only for GS 13 register. Respondent had also obtained a Gold Dealer's Li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1212DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s Kantilal Nanalal Kansara of Nadiad and their partner Shri Mohanlal Ranchhoddas Kansara have tiled these appeals against the order No. 6(Gold)/82 dt.l8J. 82 of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad a-s confirmed by the Order No. S/49-35/82 GC (Ahd) S/49-34/82GC(Ahd.) dt. 15.11.82 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, under which 169.100 gms. of primary gold recovered from Shri Mohanlal Ranchlioddas Kansara on 2.7,81 in the shop of M/s. Kantilal Nanalal Kansara was confiscated and penalties of Rs. 2000/- had been imposed on the firm and its partner. Since both these appeals under Section 81 of the Gold Control Act arise out of the same orders of the lower authorities, both these appeals have been heard simultaneously and the common order is being passed in the matter.2. The appellants admitted the recovery of gold from the pocket of Shri M.R. Kansara on 2.7.81. The primary gold was in 2 pieces and in the statement recorded from Shri M.R. Kansara under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1215DTri(Mum.)bai
1. S/Shri Naresh A. Tejwani and Nandalal R. Sachdeo have filed appeals registered under CD. (BOM) No. 65 & 66 of 1982 respectively, against the Order No. S/14-4-923/81 Pint dt. 13.8.82 of the Addl. Collector of Customs (Prey.) Bombay under which he has inter alia ordered confiscation of goods seized from M/s. Reshma Art Gallery which is owned jointly by the two appellants and ordered levy of penalty of Rs. 5C00/- on each of the appellants. Since the appellants had been aggrieved by the common order their appeals had been heard together and a common order is being passed in the matter.2. The learned Counsel Shri Desai for the appellants has argued that the appellants did not receive the show cause notice within 6 months of the date of seizure of the goods from their shop and hence in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act they asked the Addl. Collector to release the goods in their letter dt. 18.2.82. However, on 23.2.82, the appellants received a letter stating that the showca...
Tag this Judgment!