Mumbai Court August 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhimrao Nivruti Devkar Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC622
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (P), made in Order-in-Original No. S/14-5-22/90 HQ IV dated 27.8.1992 whereunder he had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant Under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act and Rs. 10,000 Under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act.2. On 6.4.1990 a shop situated at 8/B Fatimabai Bunglow, 94, K.K. Marg, Mumbai 400011, was searched in the presence of the appellant, the owner of the shop, resulting in seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 2,55,000 recovered from a brown zipper hand bag, in the reasonable belief that they were sale proceeds of the smuggled gold and liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act. Earlier on the same day the preventive officers of the Bombay Customs intercepted Narendra Kumar Hanjarmal Jain and Motaram Tulsaji Choudhary. From Narendra Kumar they recovered three gold pieces weighing 817 gms. which were seized in the reasonable belief ...
Kantilal M. Bhuva and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC610
1. Penalties were imposed upon S/Shri Kantilal M. Bhuva, Manji V.Bhuva, Lalji M. Bhuva and Shri Amritlal V. Soni vide order dated 8.6.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat, Ahmedabad. The four persons filed appeals before the Tribunal as also applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalties imposed upon them. These applications were heard together. It was submitted that Shri Amritlal V. Soni had expired even before the impugned order was passed. On this submission, unconditional stay and waiver was granted in his case.2. Shri Lalji M. Bhuva was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs.S/Shri Manji Vishram Bhuva and Kantilal Manji were directed to deposit Rs. 1.5 lakhs each. These deposits were to be made as precondition of hearing their appeals. This order was made on 18.2.99 and was communicated on 22.3.99. The Bench had fixed a date for hearing the compliance. On 4.6.99, none of the applicants was present. A letter from their common Counsel Shri A...
Canter Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC615
1. This case was posted for hearing of the Stay Application but after hearing both sides, it appeared that at this stage itself, the main appeal could be disposed of. On both sides agreeing, this was done after granting stay and waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty confirmed.2. In their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appellants had requested for stay of the order of the Assistant Commissioner impugned before the Commissioner (Appeals). He did not invite the appellants for the hearing but made the following order: I find that the appellant has not made pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,14,258 before filing the appeal as required under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962. There is also no evidence to show that such pre-deposit would cause undue hardship to the appellant. I, therefore, find no ground to dispense with the requirement of making pre-deposit of duty Under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 and reject the appeal on technical reason for non-compliance...
P.G.P. Engg. Works P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC613
1. The appellants manufactured custom made machinery. They received advances ranging between 10% to 30% of the value of the order. This amount was adjusted at the time of final billing. Three show cause notices were issued seeking to recover duty calculated on the quantum of the advances on the ground that notional interest at the rate of 18% should form part of the assessable value. Before the Collector, assessees made the plea that the goods were custom made and the advances taken were in the nature of security deposits, to safeguard them and to make the buyers accept the manufactured goods. It was claimed that invoices were filed along with the RT 12 returns which invoices showed the fact of their having secured advances. On this count it was claimed that demand amounting to Rs. 43,894/- was not sustainable. The Commissioner observed that the deposit amounted to additional consideration and notional interest should be added. At the same time however, he held that it was not necessa...
Sharp Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC628
1. This application for early hearing was argued by Shri R.K. Ghadge, Consultant. Shri K.L. Ramteke appeared for the Revenue.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner directed that the interest on deposit taken by the assessees be added to the assessable value. The Commissioner refuted the suggestion that these deposits were in the nature of security. The Commissioner referred the issue back to the Assistant Commissioner for re-quantification of the amount giving certain instructions in the situation in which the interest was not to be added to the assessable value. In this situation at this stage there is no pecuniary liability on the appellants. Shri Ghadge however informs us that as soon as the Assistant Commissioner passed the order, they have deposited the amount quantified by him. One of the reasons cited for early hearing is that this financial burden is upon them. The second reason advanced is that on the same grounds more demands have been made. Shri Ghadge fairly admits that...
Bombay Dying and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC479
2. In three different adjudication orders a total demand of Rs. 68,97,724 as duty was confirmed against the applicants and a total penalty of Rs. 2,10,000 was imposed upon them. The assessees then filed three appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai and also applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the sums and stay of recovery thereof. The Commissioner (Appeals) who heard them on their stay applications made the following order:-- 2. I have considered the submission made by the appellant in the request for grant of stay/waiver of pre-deposit and also the findings contained in the Assistant Commissioner's order. Prima facie I find that, the issues involved for consideration are not entirely free from doubt and need to be examined at length on the basis of facts available on record and appellants submissions on facts and law which may be made by the appellants in support of their claim during appeal proceedings. I also find that while the appellants have led...
Shalimar International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC612
1. The appeal memorandum shows that the impugned order dated 24.10.1997 was received by the appellants on 25.8.1998 i.e. nearly after 10 months. In the COD application it is claimed that the Commissionerate had sent the impugned order to the Clearing Agents of the appellants.In the appeal memorandum the claim is made that the appellants had not received the show cause notice at all.2. During the previous two hearings, Tribunal had made certain directions to the DR Shri Aggarwal submits that the Commissioner is yet to respond.3. The pleas raised in the COD and in the main appeal can be verified only on perusal of the case file. DR is advised to secure the file and inform the Registry of the receipt. The Registry will thereafter post this application for disposal.4. During the intervening period revenue shall take no preciptate action to recover the amount confirmed in the impugned order....
Frick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC631
1. The application is for waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 7.47 lakhs approx.3. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicant was not able to show evidence of end use of screw assembly, a part of rotary air compressor, as required under Notification 155/86 under which the goods were assessed at the concessional rate of duty. The statement of the importer that the goods have been received in its factory, and the statement of the two customers that the compressors received by them from the importer contained total screw assembly are prima facie not supported by any evidence that the goods imported under the bill of entry in question have been used in the manufacture of rotary compressors. However, we find, at this stage, merits in the contention that the actual duty payable on the goods would be around Rs. 3.30 lakhs, by applying the benefit of Notification 60/87 for basic duty and by Notification 178/94 for auxiliary duty. Taking note of the fact that the applicant has not...
Gaurav Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC629
1. These two appeals relate to the same appellants and involve the same facts. They are, therefore, being decided by this common order.2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nankani, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR for the revenue. The appellants were holders of value based advance licences which were made transferable by the issuing authorities on the satisfaction that the burden of exporting goods had already been discharged by the original allottees of the licence. In the proceedings culminating in appeal No. C. 256/R/98, the appellants had received such a licence from the original holders viz.M/s. K.H. Shoes of Madras. The licence permitted import of synthetic lining material. The goods imported were Polyester fabrics with nylon (polyamide) flocks on one side. In the proceedings leading to appeal No. C/1000-R/98-Bom similar licences had been secured by the appellants from five different original licence holders, on transfer basis. In the case of each licence the eligibi...
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Kaiser Power Appliances Ltd. and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC635
1. Applications by the Commissioner is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Preventive).3. In so far as the respondents other than Assudamal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. are concerned, the department's appeal seeks enhancement of penalty already imposed and imposition of penalty in those cases where it has not been imposed. The question of staying the order does not arise. The application also seeks stay of the operation of the order of the Commissioner, permitting reshipment of consignment of unrecorded video cassettes, exported from Hong Kong by M/s. Assudamal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The stay application advances a rather curious ground, that if the High Court decides the writ petition filed by M/s. Assudamal & Sons in their (the petitioner's) favour the appeal filed by the department would become infructuous and cause revenue loss to the department. It cannot be expected of the Tribunal, that it will act in such a manner as to frustrate the High Court's action. The orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »