Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments

Shri Vinod Mohanlal Dhakan Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC109

The appeal is preferred by the above appellant against the above-captioned Impugned order of 4.10.95, praying for setting aside the same and for such other reliefs and direction as deemed fit.1. The facts in brief are that in pursuance of an information officers of Marine and Preventive wing of Customs (Preventive) Collectorate, Bombay searched the premises of Room No. 20, Building No. 51, C.R Chawl, Shyam Seth Street, Zaveri Bazar, Bombay on 1.7.91, and recovered 5 gold strips in folded condition, from the shelf of premises Vinod M.Dhakan its Proprietor admitted that gold strips were made out of foreign marked gold biscuits on a Tarpatta Machine, installed in his premises. He could not produce any documents or explain the licit acquisition or possession of the same. 5 gold strips valued at Rs. 2,05,000 were seized in reasonable belief that they were manufactured out of smuggled gold and are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act provisions. Statement under Section 108 of Custom...

Ador Polycontainers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT821Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After careful examination of the records of the case and after hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Moreover, the appellants appear to have a prima facie case. Therefore, we allow the present application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.2. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner had disallowed the Modvat credit of Basic Excise Duty of Rs. 12,20,921/- and Special Excise Duty of Rs. 61,046/- under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules and had also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Against this order of the Asstt. Commissioner, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).The party also submitted an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal. This application was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the p...

Stellar Modular Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT817Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals involve a classification dispute. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector had, in adjudication of three classification lists filed by the assessees claiming classification of racks and cabinets under chapter Heading 85.38 of the Central Excise Tariff, approved classification as claimed by them. The jurisdictional Collector sought to review the classification and accordingly appeals were filed by the department before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's orders and held that the aforesaid products were correctly classifiable under chapter Heading 94.03. Hence the present appeals of the assessees, before us.2. The products in question are racks, cabinets, card frames etc. The appellants claim that these products were specially designed in accordance with the Indian Standard Specifications for being used for housing electronic systems and that the said items were not suitable for any other purpose. They submit that the racks...

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC504

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. for waiver of deposit of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 29,66,005 and penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the impugned order.2. Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the applicants submitted that the premises of the applicants were visited by the Central Excise Officers in November 1997 and they found difference between the physical stock of the excisable goods and the balance in RG. I register; that on the insistence of the officers they paid Rs. 20 lakhs on 9.11.97 and Rs. 10 lakhs on 18.12.97 by debiting the same in PLA under protest and subsequently they explained the reasons for difference between the physical and RG. I register stock and that on 15.7.98 they have taken credit of Rs. 30 lakhs so debited in their PLA by intimating the Department vide their letter dated 14.7.98. The present demand has been confirmed and the penalty has been impo...

M/S. Boisur Chemicals Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard Shri A.V. Naik, advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue.2. The applicants manufacture lubricating preparations and preparations for use in textile industry. For certain items declared as lubricating preparations, the benefit of notification 14/95 was claimed by them.Show cause notice issued on 29.9.1998 alleged that the items for which this benefit was claimed did not qualify for the benefit there of since they were not lubricating preparations but textile auxiliaries.Differential duty of Rs.4,60,468/- was demanded on the invocation of the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- His order having been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), an appeal was filed and the present application for waiver of pre-deposit of the sums.3. On the aspect of limitation Shri A.V. Naik submits that the language of the show cause notice does not suggest that ther...

M/S. Consolidated Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1223Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai passed order no.258/99/CAC/CC/S.B. dated 21.6.1999 enhancing the value and the quantity of the goods imported by M/s. Consolidated Enterprises. The duties and interest were ordered to be charged accordingly. Penalty of rupees thirty-four lakhs was imposed on Ram B. Gangwani, proprietor of Consolidated Enterprises. Consolidated Enterprises and Ram Gangwani thereafter filed appeals before the Tribunal and also applications seeking interim reliefs and also waiver of pre-deposit on the penalty imposed. These applications were heard on several occasions starting from 1.12.1999. Shri Anil Balani, learned counsel appearing for both applicants, raised the preliminary point of jurisdiction. He submitted that the authority who adjudicated the case lacked jurisdiction.2. The relevant observation of the adjudicating Commissioner in paragraph 13 of his order reads as under:- 3. As directed by us, the departmental representative produced the relevant order...

Morya Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)STR178

1. Mr. Bhalekar, learned Consultant of the applicant, in arguing the stay petition before me, invited my attention the communication written by Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), TRU F. No.341/43/96-TRU, dated 31-10-1996 pointing out as to how in respect of production of the films in the case of advertising agency is being exempted from the purview of the service tax and the same analogy should be considered in respect of this case. I cannot agree to that for the simple reason. This is brought to the notice of Commissioner (Appeals) before whom it was placed for hearing. Moreover, the production of the films may not be identical with that of printing of labels which is the case here. This is my prima facie view. The applicability of the said letter to the instant case has to be decided at the final hearing. Even in respect of penalty I do not have any compassion for the applicant here. The penalty imposed under the order-in-original should be paid within two months of receip...

Ghatge Patil Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC505

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts of Central Excise duty confirmed against the applicants by the Commissioner of Central Excise as also of amounts of penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules on the applicant by the Commissioner as per his order impugned in the captioned appeal. The total amount of duty confirmed by the Commissioner is Rs. 3,42,14,754. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 6,35,364 was confirmed in adjudication of the department's show cause notice dt. 4.11.97, demand of Rs. 3,21,57,832 was confirmed in adjudication of show-cause notice dt 2.12.97, demand of Rs. 12,33,802 was confirmed in adjudication of show-cause notice dt. 18.5.98 and demand of Rs. 1,87,756 was confirmed in adjudication of show-cause notice dt. 8.7.98. The demands as raised under show-cause notices dt 18.5.98 and 8.7.98 and confirmed by the Commissioner are not challenged on limitation, whereas those raise...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sharman Synthetics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT512Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Sharman Synthetics, the respondent to this appeal imported five machines and associated equipment. The function of these machines, as described by the Asst. Collector in his order, which is not questioned by the department, is to subject plastic blanks to shaping, drilling, and turning and other operations, so as to fashion them into buttons for garments. The importer claimed classification of these machines under heading 8477.80 of the Customs Tariff. This was initially not accepted by the department, resulting in an adjudication order passed by the Asst. Collector. In that order, the Asst. Collector accepted the classification claimed by the importer, and the availability of the notification. This order, on an appeal filed by the department, was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal again by the department.2. The Heading 8477 is for "Machinery for working rubber or plastics or for the manufacture of products from this material not specified or included elsewh...

Bil Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC102

This appeal is preferred by the above appellant, against the above-captioned Order-in-Appeal No. CS-47/BRD/95 dated 30.3.95 praying for setting aside the same.1. The brief facts of the case are appellant manufactures Auto Parts falling under sub-heading No. 8708.00 of Tariff Act, holding L-4 Licence No. 23/AOG/79 of Central Excise. On 22.7.91 the Central Excise Officers of Range VI Divn. II, Vadodara during Transit check near Atladra Octroi Naka, intercepted a tempo with Registration No.GJ-6-T-5123, and verified the documents and noticed 16 wooden boxes were in conformity with Gate Pass No. 152 dated 20.7.91, and on verification of delivery note no. 489 dated 20.7.91, Six packages consisting some samples were being carried without any valid Central Excise Documents. Driver of the Tempo Sri Ashok Kumar Shah on enquiry stated that he had been to appellant factory at about 4.30 hours. On verbal request of Sri Omprakash Singh being a part loading contractor, and on verbal request of owner...