Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeals taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. The two orders of the Commissioner impugned in these appeals before us demand duty from the appellant on the goods imported by it in terms of notification 203/92, on the ground that one of the conditions in the notification that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of export product, had been contravened.3. The contention of the representative of the appellant before us are these. So far as the order of the Commissioner impugned in the appeal C/114/01 is concerned, the export had not been made in terms of the advance licence and there is therefore no question of contravention of the conditions in the notification alleged against it. Insofar as the order impugned in the other appeal is concerned, modvat credit had not been availed of. The appellant did not have an opportunity to explain this to the Commissioner because no hearing was granted to it.4. In the order i...

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Bawa Bir Singh S/O Bawa Gurumukhs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR598

J.A. Patil, J.1. This is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). The claimants were the owners of the plots of land bearing C.T.S. Nos. 1109 (Part). 1110 (Part) and 1111 (Part) of village Mulund Taluka Kurla. All the three plots are contiguous and they totally admeasure 8730 sq. metres. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 14-9-1973 and published in the Government Gazette on 20-12-1973. Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 24-7-1974 and published on 5-9-1974. The land has been acquired for the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the purpose of Fire Brigade Station and road. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Suburban District (for short, SLAO) passed his Award on 10-1-1980, giving a total compensation of Rs. 14,05,579/- at the rate of Rs. 140/- per square metre. The claimants accepted the said compensation under protest on 23-1-1980, on which date, possession of the acquired land was taken and hand...

Krishnali Resports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.E. Billimorria and Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR112

F.I. Rebello, J.1. By the present petition the petitioners impugn the Award dated 29th May, 1999 passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. There being a difference of opinion amongst the arbitrators appointed, the matter was referred to the Umpire for his decision. The Umpire has passed the Award allowing the claims as set out in the impugned Award. The counter claims were dismissed as not pressed.2. The petitioners are a private limited company, who have constructed a beach resort in respect of which the respondents were contractors. On behalf of the petitioners their Architects Shashi Prabhu & Associated invited tenders. One amongst whom was the respondent. By letter of 21st July, 1993 the respondents were informed by the Architect that the petitioners had decided to Award the work of construction of beach resorts at Bhandarpule near Ganapatipule to the respondents. By letter of 22nd July, 1993, the respondents submitted their offer for the said project. On 23rd July, 1993 a written ag...

Laxmi Steel Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.3. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicant did not pay the duty that became payable as a result of the determination of the annual capacity of its furnace. The appeal mainly challenges the determination of such capacity. The correctness or otherwise of such determination is not the issue in the present proceedings the issue in these proceedings is the liability to pay duty. The appeal does not indicate whether the correctness of the determination which was made (according to the Commissioner) in August 2000 has been challenged.4. In these circumstances, we direct by the assessee of Rs. 1 lakh within a month from the receipt of this order. Thereupon we waive deposit of the remaining amount of duty and stay its recovery....

Chandra I. Kriplani and Inder Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals involve common facts and are, therefore, dealt with in this single order.2. A consignment of 5 cartons was imported by air on 13.4.99 by Smt.Chandra I. Kriplani containing mobile battery packs, integrated circuits, adapters etc. valued at Rs. 12,43,400/- cif. On 15.4.99, a consignment was imported containing 395 mobile phones, fax and accessories valued at Rs. 41,35,000/- cif by Shri Inder Kriplani. In both cases, the Airway Bills mentioned the goods as personal and household goods. On 28.4.99, the goods imported under both consignments were seized by the Customs under panchanama. On 18.6.99, in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs obtained permission from the Magistrate for disposal of the goods pending adjudication. It appears that at a later date, the goods were sold. In both the adjudication orders, the Commissioner has observed this and has shown the sale proceeds of the goods imported by Smt. Kriplani as Rs. 5,81,,076/-. The sale procee...

Phil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT585Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellants processed Cashew nuts, Peanuts, Almonds, etc. by subjecting them to dry roasting, oil roasting, salting, seasoning with spices or herbs and flavours. Such processed nuts were packed in different containers under varying brand names filled with nitrogen gas. They had not registered themselves under the Central Excise Rules.2. Their unit was visited by the jurisdictional Excise Officers. After studying the processes and after recording statements of the employees of the unit, show cause notice was issued alleging that the products of the Appellants were classifiable under Heading 2001.10. It was claimed that duty of Rs. 10,92,741/- was evaded by the present Appellants. This duty was sought to be confirmed and penalties wee sought to be imposed.Confiscation of seized stocks and the machinery used for manufacture were also alleged in the said notice.3. After hearing the assessee the Commissioner passed Orders confirming the duty demand, imposing penalties and ordering co...

Mukadam Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for early hearing of the above appeal filed by the Custom House Agent is allowed and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing since the issue has been settled by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai [2001(129) ELT 226 (Tri-LB).2. The Commissioner of Customs by the impugned order has suspended the CHA licence of the appellant under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The grievance of the appellant is that the order has been passed without issue of any notice and without any hearing or any post-decisional hearing. We find that in the Larger Bench decision cited supra in paragraph 5.4, the Tribunal has directed the Commissioner of Customs to give a personal hearing to the appellant and pass a speaking order under Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 21 of the CHA Licensing Regulations on the question as to whether the suspension of the licence should continue or not. Following the ...

Special Prints Ltd. and Garden Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT151Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Appeal dated 19.9.95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The issue originates from the issuance of 4 show cause notices to M/s. Special Prints Ltd. demanding total central excise duty of Rs. 1,62,273 on 1303 Nos. of Designed Nickel Perforated Cylinders and from the issuance of one show cause notice to M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. demanding central excise duty of Rs. 4,50,900.49 on 3240 Nos. of the same item alleged to be manufactured by the appellants in their factories and used captively in the printing of man made fabrics.M/s. Special Prints Ltd. have filed Classification List No. 1/89 and M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. have filed C.L. No. 2/86 classifying the products under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8442.00 and claiming the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 64/86 dated 10.2.86 as amended by Notification No. 276/86 dated 24.4.86. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner denied the exempt...

Flameproof Control Gears Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification for purpose of Import Trade Control of light fittings imported by the appellant. The importer sought classification of these goods under 9405.99 of the schedule Import Trade Control Policy. This subheading is for goods not covered in any other heading. The department was of the view that the goods was covered under sub-heading 40 as "other electrical lamps and lighting fittings" and it is this heading that the Commissioner has found appropriate and confiscated the goods permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine.3. They only ground in the appeal that the importer is an actual user of the goods and has a very limited market for them and hence the profit margin is low. On these facts, we find no need to interfere with the classification of the goods and therefore their liability to conf...

Taloja Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 5,22,657/- and penalty of amount equal to duty arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the Adjudicating authority who has confirmed the demand on the ground of shortages of finished goods as well as inputs and confirmed the allegation of clandestine removal. The ld.counsel's submission before the Authority below is that there was no actual shortage but only (SIC) burning loss during the manufacture of rough forged items and it is their submission that their stock does not tally only for the reason that they have not accounted for the loss. The plea of financial hardship was raised by the applicants and in this support they have produced the balance sheet for the year 1999-2000 before us showing the loss.2. The prayer for waiver and stay of recovery is opposed by the ld.D.R.who submits that neither before the Authorities below nor before the Tribunal have the appellants satisfactorily...