Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Sharad Kumar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai

2. vide order dated 11/04/1967 the Additional Collector of Customs.Bombay confiscated absolutely 8000 tolas gold seized from Sharad Kumar P Agarwal travelling to Delhi at Bombay Central Station. The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide order in appeal dated Board of Excise & Customs to be released to you, vide their order F. No. 1/66-Cus-II dated 15.6.1968, has been deposited with the Government of India, Mint on 14.12.1974, since you had failed to take delivery of the same from this Custom House within stipulated period. Further action for delivery of the said gold is under progress." 3. However, referring to the same letter of Shri Agarwal from the same file one more letter was written on 10/06/1999 which reads as follows: " Please refer to your letter No. nil dated 10/12/1997 on the above subject. "2. The matter has been examined. Your claim for 800 tolas of gold is barred by limitation and the department is not obliged to entertain the claim at this stage. "3. In view of a...

idi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT832Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order, we find that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was so done.2. The appellants sell their goods at factory gate on payment of duty to various customers. Some goods are transferred to their own depots on payment of duty on the basis of stock transfer invoices. The prices at which such goods were sold from the depots varied and were not the same at the prices at which the goods were cleared from the factory on payment of duty.3. 16 show cause notices were issued covering the period. The allegations were identical. It was claimed that the prices at which the goods were transferred to their own depots were lower than the prices at which goods were sold to outside. It was also alleged that different prices were charged for the same goods from the same buyers and the same phenomenon had recurred in Ex-depot sales also. It was claimed that such sales at differential prices were made wi...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Aditya Auto Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee took modvat credit on the basis of original copy of the invoice when the law required the credit to be taken on the duplicate copy alone. There, however, existed a provision where on an application being made, the jurisdictional officer could allow the credit to be taken on the original copy. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner directing the assessees to substantiate their case of loss. Against this order this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.2. The only claim made in the appeal memorandum is that the procedure prescribed in the Trade Notice has not been followed. I find from the record that the dispute is not on the fact but on the manner in which the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner is to be obtained.Nothing prevents the Assistant Commissioner from following the dictates of the Trade Notice in examining the evidence led by the assessees. The appeal has been filed on mere technicality and does not sur...

Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT297Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 55,24/- vide letter dated 29/03/1990. On 31/03/1990 the officer of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar acknowledged the receipt of the application vide letter No. S-12/398/90 ACC (R). The appellants were directed to produce another certificate which was also produced on 13/12/1990. On 22/11/1991 a reminder was sent to the Customs and also on 15/04/1992. When no reply was received the appellant wrote to the Principal Collector of Customs. They were informed on 1/10/1993 that their claim had been dismissed vide order dated 09/03/1991. In the letter it was claimed that the copy of the dismissal order was sent on the same day. One more copy was enclosed with the said letter of the Principal Collector. Against this order an appeal was filed on 26/05/1994. In the proforma of the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund was referred to and it was said that the copy thereof had not been receive...

Swaminarayan Polysack Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case laminated HDPE fabrics weighing 1692 kgs and valued at Rs. 106596/- were found not to be accounted for in the RG 1 Register of the appellants. The goods were seized and confiscated with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and since the goods were not available for confiscation the redemption fine was directed to be recovered from the appellants in terms of the bond executed by them at the time of release of the goods. Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellants pleaded against the quantum of fine and penalty before the Commissioner (Appeals) which plea was rejected. Hence this appeal which is come up for admission.2. In view of the fact that the appellants have not seriously contested the liability of goods to confiscation and having regard to the fact that the quantum of fine and penalty are not disproportionate to the value of the goods, I hold that this is not a fit case of admission and accordingly reject the appea...

Qureishi Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported defective CRGO sheets under the strength of two REP licences. These licences were issued on 27/08/1990 and 16/05/1990. The goods were imported in December, 1991 and January, 1992. At the time of import the 1990-93 Import Trade Control Policy was in force. The items made importable under the Policy 1988-90 were not permissible in the later Policy. The licence dated 27/08/1990 contained the prescription that provisions of 1988-90 Policy would apply. The licence dated 16/05/1991 referred to the relevant provisions in the 1983-84 Policy. The Commissioner held that the imports had taken place when the 1990-93 Policy was in operation. Anything which was inconsistent with that Policy was not permissible import. He found that the provisions under the 1990-93 Policy did not permit importation of such goods under such licence and held that the import as without the cover of licence, he confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) but permitted their redemption on fine. H...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ajanta Paper and General Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has dropped the demand raised against the respondents herein on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation.2. On hearing both sides it is very clear that the suppression is alleged not against the Respondents but by M/s. Atul Products, who had availed of exemption without mentioning the exemption Notification number in the gate passes. The Commissioner has rightly held that the department has not beeb able to establish suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of duty against the respondents and there is nothing in the appeal memorandum to persuade me to take a different view. Since the suppression is not charged against the respondents, the extended period for limitation cannot be obviously made applicable against them. Therefore I agree with the Commissioner that the demand raised in the show cause notice against the Commissioner that the demand raised in the sh...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Lans Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in this case relates to the eligibility of Gum Tape used as packing material by the respondents who are manufacturers of Aluminium Collapsible Tubes, to modvat credit.2. On hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the written submissions filed before me on the ground that the respondent that they are entitled to modvat credit since the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II [1994 (70) ELT 595 (Tribunal)] has held that Gum Tape is eligible for modvat credit and this decision of the Tribunal has been followed subsequently, following the ratio of the above decision I hold that modvat credit is available to the respondents or gum tape used by them for packing their final products, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal of the Revenue....

Comet Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein were engaged in the manufacture of Thinners and Solvents falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were clearing the same on payment of duty. In 1985 they came to know that the goods in question were exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 179/99 dt.18.6.77 as the same were being manufactured without the aid of power.They filed a classification list in August 1985 claiming exemption under the above mentioned notification and the same was approved on 20.11.1985, extending the benefit thereof on 24.12.1985. The appellants filed claim for refund of Rs. 1,22,566.85 being the duty paid by them during the period 30.4.83 to 18.8.85. The claim was proposed to be rejected on the ground of time bar. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation and further on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the duty was being paid under protest. The ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gan Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending modvat credit on the strength of subsidiary certificates showing delivery of the inputs covered thereunder the respondents, even though there was no specific endorsement by M/s.Warren Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the respondents.2. On hearing both sides and noting that the subsidiary certificate themselves show that the inputs were delivered to the respondents and further noting that there is no dispute regarding duty paid of input (SIC) in question I hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal....