Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jac Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT179Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Jac Enterprises, (Jac for short) the respondent to this appeal filed by the Commissioner, was a customs house agent licensed under the Customs Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984. In June 1983 the Customs House officers posted at the Air Cargo Complex at Sahar detected an attempt to smuggle out 150 kilograms of mandrax, a prohibited psychotropic substance, concealed between the walls of two filing cabinets which were being exported to Malawi. Investigations conducted by the department showed the involvement in the attempted export of Ashok M. Boge and Vittal Uttekar who were customs clerks of Jac Enterprises. The exporter on record of the filing cabinets was M/s.Eastern Enterprises, and the shipping bill had been filed by it. After its initial processing, prior to the examination of the cabinets, Ankur Mhashilkar, who was pursuing the clearance through customs of the cabinets, asked Borge and Uttekar to take charge of the clearance.Accordingly, Uttekar crossed out from the shipp...
Tag this Judgment!Om Freight Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT549Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Customs imposing penalty under Section 112 of the Act on Rahul Joshi, proprietor of M/s. Om Freight Forwarders, the appellant before us. The Collector found that the appellant abetted undervaluation of watch modules imported by Heena Traders and Deepika Traders, made by Har Bhagwan Wadhwa and Rajinder Nanda, and ordered confiscation of these watches under Section lll(d) besides increasing their value for the purpose of assessment.2. The reasons by which Collector has established abetment are that the appellant undertook to clear the goods as a custom house agent without obtaining written authority from the importer as prescribed in Regulation 14 of the Custom House Agents Regulation Act, 1984. It handed over bonds on behalf of the importer without signatures and clear address and filed wrong declaration on value.2. The contention of the advocate for the appellant that failure to obtain a written authority cannot by itself justify...
Tag this Judgment!Atlas Laminates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC526
1. The notice to show cause dated 24.12.1979 demanding duty from the appellant was in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector's order adjudicating on this notice was passed on 30.11.1980. Rule 10 was omitted by the Central Excise the 15th Amendment to Rules, 1980 which came into effect on 17.11.1980.Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India 2000 (37) RLT 1 the Supreme Court held that proceedings under Rule 10 which was omitted on 6.8.1977 could not continue thereafter. It said that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will not apply in a case where a rule is omitted; in the absence of a saving clause in the enactment by which the rule was omitted, or in the enactment by which the fresh rule was inserted, proceedings under the old Rule 10 would lapse on its omission.3. The same position holds true of the omission made of Rule 10 in 1980. The amending act by which the rule was omitted contains no saving provision. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Eisen Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC716
1. There is no response to the notice issued to the Commissioner (with a copy to the departmental representative) to produce copies of the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. The department representative seeks one more opportunity for reasons which he is unable to explain to us. If the Commissioner and the departmental representative chose not to act upon the notice of the registry, we do not see how any number of opportunities will help. This is already the second opportunity provided for filing the appeal complete with enclosures (the first being when the appeal itself was filed).2. The notice to the Commissioner advised him that since only one appeal had been filed against the order disposing of an appeal against three respondents the appeal will be treated as an appeal against the order in the appeal of M/s. Eisen Pharmaceuticals. Thus there is only one appeal and that appeal is dismissed Under Rule 11A of the (CEGAT) Procedure Rules....
Tag this Judgment!Raj Petrochem Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT186Tri(Mum.)bai
1.The appellant subjected used lubricating and other mineral oils to treatment treating them with acid or alkali, and filtration through fuller's earth, thereby removing the impurities in them, and rendering them fit for use again as such lubricating or other oil, referred to as "white oil". The question for consideration in this appeal is whether this activity amounts to manufacture. Adjudicating on the notice to show cause to the appellant the Commissioner held that the process resulted in the emergence of a new commodity with different use and hence amounted to manufacture.2. It is the contention of the advocate for the appellant that removal of impurities from used oil so that it can be rendered fit for use does not amount to manufacture. This contention has to be accepted in the light of the decisions of the Tribunal that the appellant relies upon in support. In CCE v. Crescent Chemical Corporation -1990 (48) E.L.T.458 the Tribunal held, relying upon an unreported judgment of the...
Tag this Judgment!Maersk India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Maersk India Limited, the appellant before us, filed on behalf of the master of its ship Thomas Maersk, an import manifest on 1st January, 1996, when she called at Nhava Sheva. On 4th January, 1996 the slot charter agent sought permission to file a supplementary manifest for the same ship, seeking to add 57 containers to the 34 containers for which the manifest has already been filed. These 57 containers with the rest of the cargo containers, which had been manifested, had been unloaded from the ship on 1st January. It is on these facts that the Commissioner in the impugned order before us has imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under Clause (a) of Section 112 of the Act.2. The contention of the appellant that Sub-section (3) of Section 30 permitted filing of supplementary manifest need not concern us. Penalty has been imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Sections 30 and 32, that the containers which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Clariant (India) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT740Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned before us the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that a sum of DM 175,0007-payable by M/s. Clariant (India) Limited, the appellant before us, to M/s Sandoz Quinn, Lienfelden, West. Germany is to be included in the assessable value of raw materials for manufacture of leather chemicals imported by the appellant from Sandoz Quinn.2. The appellant had entered into an agreement with Sandoz Quinn for purchasing know-how from it for the upgrading of modernisation of its plant for manufacture of leather chemical. It was in pursuance of this agreement that payment of DM 500,000/- (of which DM 175,0007- represents a part) was to be made. After scrutiny of the agreement, the Assistant Commissioner passed an ex-parte order enhancing the assessable value of the raw material. This order was set-aside in appeal as being in contravention on principles of natural justice.Accordingly the Assistant Commissioner passed another order.3. In that order, he has held that the appellant a...
Tag this Judgment!Gyarasidevi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR342(Bom)
1. We have heard Mr. V. D. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr, R. G. Deo, learned standing counsel for the Union of India as well as Mr. V. D. Sapkal, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No. 5.2. The petitioner has brought in question a notice dated January 11, 2000, issued by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5, with a copy to Jivanram Bijeram Agrawal (Hindu undivided family), Dhule, and this notice is purportedly issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The whole controversy revolves around land in final plot No. 87 of Dhule town which admeasures about six acres and out of which, two acres have already been acquired by respondent No. 5 some time in the year 1974. In respect of the compensation amount for the acquired land, first appeal was decided by this court and the order of this court came to be challenged before the apex court by filing a special leave petition. The said special leave petition came to be decid...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gyarasidevi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Bom)382
ORDERBy The Court:We have heard Mr. V.D. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.G. Deo, learned standing counsel for the Union of India as well as Mr. V. D, Sapkal, learned Addl. Government Pleader for the respondent No. 5.2. The petitioner has brought in question a notice dated 11-1-2000 issued by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 5, with a copy of M/s Jivanram Bijeram Agrawal (HUF), Dhule, and this notice is purportedly issued under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short). The whole controversy revolves around land in Final Plot No. 87 of Dhule town which admeasures about six acres and out of which, two acres have already been acquired by the respondent No. 5 sometime in the year 1974. In respect of compensation amount for the acquired land, first appeal was decided by this court and the order of this court came to be challenged before the apex court by filing a SLP. The said SLP came to be decided by the apex court vide its order dated 12-...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ambalal M. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC117
Shri Ambalal Jain, the present appellant and another person namely Mangilal Chaudhary were intercepted. The search of their persons resulted in seizure of foreign exchange as well as of India Currency.The search of Shri Jain's person led to recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 2500/- and foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 2,85,125/-. The search of his residence resulted in the further recovery of foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 50,938/- Indian Currency of Rs. 2,44,500/- and miscellaneous goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 45,900/-. The search of his shop resulted in the further recovery of goods of foreign origin of Rs. 15,000/-. In his statement recorded on 14.6.96 Shri Jain admitted to dealing in goods of foreign origin. He claimed that he used to take the goods from one Shri Prakash Jain who was the owner of a shop and the employer of Shri Mangilal Chaudhary. he admitted that the seized currency was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. This statement was retracted by him on the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »