Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Shop Aid Manufacturers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT216Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal No. E/52-R/96-Mum. filed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Pune, was argued by Smt. Reena Arya SDR. Respondents having filed Cross-objection bearing No. E/CO-63-R/96-Mum. were not present. The respondents manufactured Filteration Systems and Conveyor Systems. These were cleared on payment of appropriate duty under cover of gate passes. On scrutiny of their records a view was held that the classification of certain products was not correct. These products were (1) Electrical Panels (2) Mesh Bags (3) Conveyor Chain Assemblies. Show cause notice was issued on 4-12-1993 on the presumption that due to wrong classification, the assessees had short paid duty to the extent of Rs. 31,793/-. The show cause notices sought confirmation of this duty and imposition of penalty on the assessees. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the case. He accepted the classification of Electrical Panels under Heading 8421.00 but cautioned that where they were cleared as spares, Heading 8...

Jet Time India Pvt. Ltd. and S.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC85

1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 29.11 lakhs and penalty of equal amount under Rule 173Q by Jet Time India Pvt. Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q and Rule 225 on S.I. Patel, its Managing Director Jet time India Pvt. Ltd. manufactures quartz clocks, movements and parts in its factory at Tivim, Goa. The Commissioner finds that it removed 219 consignments of clocks and their parts without payment of duty. The basis for this finding briefly is the number of airway bills issued by M/s. Trade Wings Limited, the cargo agent for Indian Airlines, the carrier and statements of Jude Soares, an employee of Trade Wings, Marcia D'Souza and other persons.The department's case is that Soares used to pick up twice or thrice in a month these consignments without payment of duty.2. The airway bills show the cargo to be quartz clocks or their parts.The consignor in many of the airway bills on the basis of which these are prepared stated to be the manufacture or of bu...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sweety Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT492Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above stay petition as well as the appeal was filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No. 143/2000 (9-Ahd.-II)C.E./Commr.(A)/Ahd., dated 29-2-2000 confirming the Order-in-Original dated 29-10-1997 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nadiad. By the Order-in-original Assistant Commissioner has confirmed the demand of denial of Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 37,105/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/-.2. Question involved in the appeal is about availability of the Modvat credit claimed by the assessee in respect of air conditioner and air compressor under Rule 57Q of the Modvat rules. Question is whether these inputs come within the provisions of the definition of capital goods.3. From the wording of the captive contained in Rule 57Q the items in question namely air conditioner and air compressor come within the term capital goods. The argument of the department as reflected in th...

Varun Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC86

1. The reasons forthcoming from the Commissioner's order for suspending the licence issued to it under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, are these. Despite issue of two reminders, the licensee did not come forward with records that were asked for verifying the genuineness of the request made by it for issue of passes to its employees. The number of passes requested seemed to the department to be in excessive in relation to the volume of work conducted by the assessee, and led to the inference that the licensee permitted some other person to use the licence, which required investigation.2. We agree that the delay by the custom house agent in producing the information called for reflects on his competence and abilities.Certainly, if the custom house agent cannot even reply to the custom house in time, whether he would be able to deal with the requests of his clients for prompt clearance seems questionable. However, that itself is no ground for pre-emptory suspension o...

The Shringoda Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The ground for condonation of the delay is the illness followed by the death of Dy. Chief chemist. On the last occasion, the advocate for the applicant was asked to produce an affidavit from the Managing Director indicating why during the illness of the Dy. Chief Chemist the appeal could not have been filed by anyone else who was looking after the work of the Dy. Chief Chemist. The affidavit affirmed by Vinayak Sahebrao Mohite, the Managing director mainly concentrates why he (the deponent) was busy, apparently due too some political struggle involved with the Chairman of the company. It does not indicate why, in the absence of the Dy. Chief Chemist any other person who looking after the work including the chemical and technical work of the sugar factory could not take steps to file the appeal.2. We are therefore not satisfied that there is a case for condonation of delay, and business the application, and therefore, as barred by limitation, the appeal....

income-tax Officer Vs. Clothing Export Processing Zone

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD222(Mum.)

1. I find it convenient to dispose of the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee for assessment year 1994-95 by this consolidated order. Rival contentions have, been heard and record perused.3. The first ground of appeal is against the decision of the CIT(A) in treating the receipt of Rs. 9, 61,020 by the assessee on account of providing accommodation on leave & license basis to be assessed under the head "Income from other sources" as against under the head "Income from house property" assessed by the Assessing Officer.4. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee is Cooperative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.It had given one floor of administrative building of the society to Punjab National Bank on leave & license basis in consideration of Rs. 80, 085 per month. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,45, 471. Since the expenditure claimed by the assessee was in excess of the income, the assesse...

Malan Satish Lawande and Anr. Vs. EdwIn M.A. D'Souza and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2001)ACC404; 2002ACJ1131

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the appellants and the respondent No. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 42 of 1991, wherein the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,43,000 to the claimants-appellants in the proportion of 50 per cent to each of them with interest on Rs. 92,000 at the rate of 11 per cent per annum from 6.3.1991, that is the date of presentation of the claim petition till payment. The Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal adjusted Rs. 25,000 which was paid to the claimants-appellants under the no fault liability.2. Admittedly, there is no cross-appeal or counter-appeal on behalf of the insurance company. Therefore, the only question that is required to be considered in this appeal is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the motor cycle was also negligent or whether the driver of the motor cycle ha...

Kishore Hemani and Mukesh Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC442

1. In all these appeals, the appellants have challenged the above-captioned impugned order S/10-1/DRI/BZU/92/DRI/BZU/122/16/91 dated 2.4.93 by the Collector of Customs II, Mumbai, praying for quashing the same and setting aside the entire penaltyimposed under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act and declared that the value of the imported goods by Gulmohar Inds. as correctly declared at US $ 352 PMT as against the value of US $ 440 per MT held by the Collector, and for any other relief deemed fit.2. In the Appeal No. C/1789/93 it is further requested by Shah and Mehta that the penalty imposed under Section 112 read with 147 of the Customs Act of Rs. 23 lakhs has to be set aside.3. The facts of the case in brief, in all these appeals are that on gathering the intelligence by the DRI Bombay that Shri Mukesh Shah of Shah and Mehta was importing fast moving items like gum rosin, hydrogen peroxide, citric acid etc. by misdeclaring the value, unauthorisedly selling the goods in the mar...

Essar Oil Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC804

1. Of five appeals before us, two are by M/s. Essar Oil Limited (Essar for short), two by M/s. Aban Lloyd Chiles Offshore Limited (Aban for short) and one by M/s. Amership Management Limited (Amership for short). Appeal C/394-V/98-Bom. of Aban and appeal C/395/98-Bom. of Essar are against the orders of the Commissioner ordering confiscation of the goods belonging to them, with an option to redeem them on payment of fine and demanding duty on the goods. The other two appeals by Essar and Aban and the appeal by Amership are against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for duty on goods removed from rigs and brought to Nhava base of the ONGC and cleared therefrom without payment of duty, and imposing penalties on them under Section 112 of the Act for such acts.2. The background to the notices that were issued to the appellants resulting into the impugned orders is the same. Each of the appellants was engaged in oil exploration in the waters of Bombay. They carried out expl...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Yale Intex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner adjudicating on a notice issued to M/s Yale Intex (respondent to this appeal), a division of M/s Yale Industrial Lubricants Pvt Ltd. The notice alleged that the respondent had cleared towels manufactured by it without payment of duty, demanded duty on towelling fabrics, as well as on the towels manufactured therefrom. The notice also alleged that the respondent had not declared the manufacture of towelling fabric for the year 1993-94. A penalty was also proposed.2. The respondent submitted before the Commissioner that the export of the goods had taken place. The goods were sent by the respondent to Yale Industrial Lubricants Pvt Ltd at Mumbai from there they were exported under an invoice different from the one under which the respondent sent the goods to Mumbai. The respondent produced a certificate of a chartered accountant. This certificate given details of clearances at Nagpur and subsequent clearances. It certified that towe...