Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT684Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals arise out of the same order and are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. The facts of the case in so far as they pertain to these two appellants, are as under: The customs at Sea Coast at Anjarla Sawani had accosted a party of persons who were loading silver bricks from a vessel into a tempo. On exchange of fire on both sides, the smugglers ran away. The officers seized 113 silver bricks weighing 3541 kgs. valued at Rs. 2.48 lacs as also the tempo in which the bricks were loaded. A motorcycle standing by, a double barrel gun with cartridges, some clothes and documents wero also seized. S.B. Kolambekar, who claimed ownership of the tempo is the first appellant. In the impugned order the silver bricks were confiscated. The tempo and the motorcycle as well as the double barreled gun were confiscated. The tempo was allowed redemption on payment of fine. A penalty was imposed upon Kolambekar. Shri Gopal Rama Chougule the second appellant was also penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(112)ELT1023Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On 2-11-1998 the applicant filed application before the designated authority under 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998'. The Tribunal sent a notice of hearing in respect of the appeal and intimated the date of hearing as 19-11-1998. On that day neither the appellant nor the Advocate for the appellant appeared before the Tribunal. Hence the Tribunal on that day i.e. on 19-11-1998 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act as application was made for extension of time for making deposit of two months and that eight months have passed and no deposit has been made.Subsequent to that on 12-3-1999 the authorities under the 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998' passed a declaration in terms of Section 90(2) of the Finance Act No. 2 of 1998. The prayer of the applicant is the appeal which was dismissed on 19-11-1998 should be restored to the file and thereafter dismiss it in terms of provisions of Section 91 of the Finance Act No. 2 of 1998. From t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)LC541Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the stay application was argued, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal at this stage. With the consent of both the parties, this was done.2. The appellants are operating under the Modvat scheme. When the liquid inputs like paraxylene and methanol were received under duty paying challan, the assessees caused weighment to be done. Credit was taken on the quantity actually received and not on the basis of the quantity shown in the duty paying documents. However, with effect from 9-5-1995, although the assessees continued to weigh and ascertain the actual quantity received, they took Modvat credit on the quantity shown in the duty paying documents. The department came across the data regarding weighment and observed that during the period September, 1995 to March, 1997, the duty leviable on the material short received amounted to Rs. 15,69,878. The assessees voluntarily deposited this amount on 11-4-1997. Even then, on 12-5-1998, the show cause not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)LC544Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By our Order No. 938/98-WZB, dated 25-4-1998, we had dismissed the appeal of the department holding that the felts and wires were inputs within the meaning of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. In holding the same, we had followed the decision of the Larger Bench in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 213. The instant application has been filed for referring a question of law to jurisdiction-al High Court for giving its opinion and the question has been framed in the application mentioning inter alia, whether the Tribunal was right in deciding the issue.3. During the course of arguments, Shri Ramteke, the ld. DR had invited our attention to the decision of the NRB who had referred a similar question for opinion to Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers -1997 (95) E.L.T. 670. In the said judgment when we look into we find that there is an order of reference to the Bombay High Court in the case of B.K. Paper Mills - Ref. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(112)ELT822Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application for condonation of delay was argued by Shri A.Ashokan, JDR.2. The impugned order was communicated to the applicant Commissioner on 22-7-1998. The appeal was received in the CEGAT on 17-2-1999. In this application for condonation of delay, the following ground is given: "The time limit for filing of this appeal was to expire on 20-10-1998. However, due to oversight/ignorance of the person delivering the documents, the copies of the appeal were submitted in the office of the Jt. Chief Departmental Representative on 14-10-1998 and an endorsement to this effect was obtained on the covering letter dated 13-10-1998 addressed to the Registrar, CEGAT, a copy of which is enclosed for ready reference. Since no communication was received from the CEGAT regarding our stay application personal enquiries were made at the office of the Assistant Registrar, CEGAT, and Joint CDR, which revealed that appeal was not filed due to non-submission of appeal copies in the office of the As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)LC467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was a manufacturer, inter alia, of electric generating sets. It sold part of its production of such generating sets to the defence forces. The goods sold to the defence forces were either the generating sets by themselves, or the sets mounted on trailers. In the latter case, the trailers were either purchased by the appellant, or supplied by the defence forces to whom they were returned after fitment of the generating set. The appellant included in the assessable value of the mounted generating sets the cost of the trailers which it purchased. It did not include the value of the trailers provided by the defence forces. In the orders impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector (whose order was impugned before him) that the cost of such trailers also ought to be included.2. Advocate for the appellant contends that the bulk of the generating sets in question were sold by it in the market at the factory gate without...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(85)LC66Tri(Mum.)bai
1. With the consent of both the sides the appeal is taken up for hearing, granting waiver of deposit as prayed in the stay application.2. The appellant have imported SIMVASTATIN USP 23, a drug under bill of entry No. 3257 dated 5.9.1998, which on examination was found not to be labelled in the prescribed manner showing the name of the drug, its pharmacopoeia standard and date of expiry, deemed to be mis-branded one as per Section 9(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On testing, the goods tested positive and M/s. Hexa Analytical Laboratories opined that the importer mis-branded the goods and is prohibited under Section 10(b) read with Section 13 and 14 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Therefore the goods become liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importer liable for penal action under Section 112 of the said Act.3. Appellant waived show cause notice and attended personal hearing on 19.11.1998. After hearing the appellant and perusing the records...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(112)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present application for early hearing relates to Appeal No. C.662-V/97-Bom. The Appeal has been filed against a communication dated 3-6-1997 form the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The communication is reproduced below : Sub : Import of 150 bales of Acrylic Tow per S.S. Kota Singa - Bill of Entry No. 7967, dated 22-11-1995 B/E Rotation No. 2602, dated 23-10-1995 Line No. 70. Please refer to your letter dated 20-5-1997 on the above subject. I have gone through the records of the case and find that your client had given tacit consent to the loading when the Bill of entry was assessed on 23-1-1996. (2) It is also seen that the duty was not paid under protest nor did they ask for an order of assessment at that point of time. It was only after nearly nine months that your client had written a letter dated 11-9-1996 asking for an Assessment Order. By that time the Asstt. Commissioner who passed the order had left this Custom House. (3) Since much time has elapsed from the date of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(85)LC548Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Question involved in this appeal is whether the duty is to be charged at the sized weight of yarn. The lower appellate authority holding the duties to be charged on yarn before sizing has relied upon Apex Court's judgment in the case of J.K. Spinning & Weaving Mills v.Union of India 46. In the instant case, the appellants are liable to pay Excise duty on the yarn which is obtained at an intermediate stage and, thereafter, further processed in an integrated process for weaving the same into fabrics. Although it has been alleged that the yarn is obtained at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of fabrics, it appears to be not so. After the yarn is produced it is sized and, thereafter, subjected to a process of weaving the same into fabrics. Be that as it may, as we have held that the commodity which is obtained at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of another commodity, is liable to the payment of Excise duty, the yarn that is p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1999Bom349; 1999(3)BomCR790; (1999)2BOMLR712
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Appeal Lodging Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of 1999. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from Appeal Lodging No. 1 of 1999. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 22nd March, 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'; passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.L.B.'), at New Delhi in Company Petition No. 46 of 1998. The aforesaid Company Petition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein being petitioners therein under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals may briefly be noticed. 2. Appellant No. 1 Company was incorporated on or about 26th July, 1994 with an authorised and paid up share capital of Rs. 5 lakhs. Sometime in March, 1995, respondent No. 1 along with appellant No. 2 and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 purchased 100 per cent shareholding of the Comp...
Tag this Judgment!