Mumbai Court September 1999 Judgments

Garware Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT858Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants filed a price list in Part 1. At the same time they had also filed a price list in Form II. It was held by the Assistant Collector that where Part I price lists were prevalent, Part II price lists could not be filed for the same goods. Before the Collector (Appeals) the plea made was that a price was separately negotiated with the buyer on account of the large quantity being purchased by him. The Collector (Appeals) observed that price lists in Part I also would suffice where the provision existed for quantity discounts being shown.On this count he upheld the lower order, resulting in the present appeal being filed before us.2. We find this issued to be settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madras - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449. In paragraph 12 of this order the Court observed that a buyer who purchased small quantities of goods would stand in different class as compared to a buyer who purchased 90% of the manufactured go...

Amartara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC79

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 4.67 crores and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs.2. The applicant utilized in the manufacture of its final product, cleared for home consumption on payment of duty, inputs which had been received by it under a Customs exemption notification relating to DEEC scheme without payment of the basic and additional duty of customs. The impugned order of the Commissioner is issued on his view that such a procedure is impermissible according to law.3. The Advocate for the appellant contends that the circular of the Ministry No. 261/72/16/87-CX 8, dated 8-8-1998, reproduced in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 317 specifically permits such a procedure. The Commissioner's view that he is not bound by this circular cannot be supported in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Kores (I) Ltd. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 441. He has also said that this same conclusion has been independently arrived at by the Tribunal in Sawottam Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v.C.C.E.Pratap S...

Corrogard Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT694Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector has held the product "Ecoklin' manufactured by the applicant to be classifiable as a cleaning preparation under Heading 3402.90 of the Tariff, confirmed the demand for difference between the duty payable under that heading and that paid by the appellant following its classification under Heading 2851.00 and also imposed a penalty on the applicant.2. Appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The appeal does not question the classification determined by the Collector but contends that the demand for duty was barred by limitation. The notice to show cause was issued for a period beyond six months and therefore invoked the extended period in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. It is the appellant's contention that it had correctly described the goods in the classification list as a degreasing compound and had done so ever since the product was manufactured, and that, being aware of this description, the department ha...

A.M. Electronics Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT979Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The limited issue for consideration in this appeal is whether a benefit given to "radio sets" including "transistor sets" at Sr. No. 10 of Notification No. 57/73 of the Central Excise Tariff would be available to radio sets connected with sound reproducing and recording equipment.2. This issue stands fully covered in the Tribunal judgment in the case of Philips India Etd. v. C.C.E., Pune - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 375. Following the ratio of this judgment, we allow this appeal with consequential benefits....

Chiranjilal S. Goenka Vs. Wealth Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. In this application for stay of demand being sought to be filed by Mrs. Sushila N. Rungta, a preliminary question has arisen regarding the amount of fee to be paid. This short question was fixed for hearing before us on 14th May, 1999, on which date the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative appeared before us and made their submissions.2. Shri V. H. Patil, the learned counsel for the assessee, argued that the procedure regarding application for stay of demand is governed by r. 35A of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which does not provide for any fee. The question of payment of fee along with the application for stay of demand has arisen in view of the provisions of s. 253(7) of the IT Act, 1961. He pointed out that while the provisions of s. 253 require a separate appeal for each assessment year, no such requirement has been laid down the provisions of s. 253(7). Hence, there is no requirement that there should be separate application in respe...

State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Tukaram Yashwant Dindorle

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR533; 2000BomCR(Cri)533; 2000(1)MhLj388

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. The State has preferred this writ petition against the order of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dated 10-1-1992 in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 116/88 and 149/88.2. The two questions which are raised in this writ petition are, (1) whether the petitioners accused who are the Forest Officers could make an application for their discharge on the ground of want of sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C. in a private complaint filed against them for the alleged offence committed in discharge of their official duties and (2) whether the Government Pleader could defend them in the trial Court.3. The learned JMFC, Malkapur dismissed their application (Exhibit 14) for discharge on the ground that it was not the stage for making application for discharge and that the said application could only be considered at the time of framing of the charge but upheld the right of the Government Pleader to appear for the accused who are the Forest Officers. When the matter w...

Chiranjilal S. Goenka Vs. Wealth Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(Mumbai)728

ORDERS. C. Tiwari, A.M.In this application for stay of demand being sought to be filed by Mrs. Sushila N. Rungta, a preliminary question has arisen regarding the amount of fee to be paid. This short question was fixed for hearing before us on 14-5-1999, on which date the learned counsel for the assessee and, the learned Departmental Representative appeared before us and made their submissions.2. Shri V.H. Patil, the learned counsel for the assessee, argued that the procedure regarding application for stay of demand is governed by rule 35A of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which does not provide for any fee. The question of payment of fee along with the application for stay of demand has arisen in view of the provisions of section 253(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He pointed out that while the provisions of section 253 require a separate appeal for each assessment year, no such requirement has been laid down the provisions of section 253M. Hence, there is no requirement that there sh...

Siddhi Foods and Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs (A)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT933Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When this application seeking stay came up for hearing, it appeared that the issue being settled, the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only).2. The appellants imported Used Diesel Engines. They did not have necessary licence to import the goods. The engines were therefore confiscated and allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 18,00,000/- on the accepted value of Rs. 6,15,030/-, compressors of value of Rs. 15,000/- were held to be undeclared and subjected to confiscation and redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/-. Penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed. Hence the present appeal.3. We have heard Shri V.M. Doiphode, Counsel for the appellants and Shri B.K. Choube for the revenue.4. The appeal is on a very short point and that is the quantum of fine.The Additional Collector of Customs in his order listed the prevailing market prices of ...

Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT702Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner of Customs has held that the benefit of Notification 203/99 would not be available to the goods imported by the appellant on an advance licence for the reason that on manufacture of the exported product, in pursuance of the export obligation under DEEC Scheme the benefit of Modvat credit was availed of. He has confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty.2. The Advocate for the applicant's two contention is that licence in question was not a value based advance licence to which the provision of notification 204/92 would apply; it was a quantity based advance licence import under which were covered by Notification 203/92 which did not provide any condition to disentitle the import of the benefit of the notification if the Modvat credit was availed of so long as the licence was not transferred before us credit was available. He contends that the manufacture took place of the exported produced by the manufacturer himself. The ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Vivek V. Naik

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC399Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents to these appeals are four partners of a firm which was licensed as a 100% export orient unit for manufacture of stainless steel utensils. The firm imported in 1988 two consignments of steel sheets in coils weighing 19.672 metric tonne. Notice was issued to it on 15-2-1995 by the department alleging that out of imported material approx. 8.33 metric tonne was unused in the manufacture of the exported product and demanding duty on this quantity. The notice also alleged contravention of the provision of Section 61 of the Act in that warehoused goods were retained in a warehouse without payment of duty beyond the period specified in the section. After considering the reply, the Assistant Collector of Customs confirmed the demand for duty. On appeal from this order by the importer, the Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector. He was of the view that the order has been issued without verifying stock "is agreed upon by the appellant and the r...