Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Petron Engineering Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two applications relate to two appeals filed by the same appellant. These are therefore disposed of vide this single order.Price List No. 122/93 dt. 5.7.93 declaring value of Rs. 69,250/- per coil was approved by the Assistant Collector. On 17.8.1993 another price list was filed showing the value of Rs. 4,46,250/-. The Assistant Collector did not proceed to finalise this price list in terms of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules. Instead, on 3.9.93 the Range Superintendent merely returned the fresh price list directing clearance of the goods in terms of the earlier price list. The assessees had in the meanwhile cleared some goods on payment of duty as calculated on the later price list. The demand of differential duty of Rs. 6,15,000.00 was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner and the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld this order, the present appeal and application have been filed.We find force in the submission of the Counsel that unle...

Ashish and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. On the last occasion, the applicant was absent. We had adjourned the matter so as to give the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard. We now proceed to take up the appeal after hearing the respondent.2. The first ground in the application that the appeal does not say whether the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, does not take note of the order dated 1.11.96 of the Tribunal, communicated to the respondent, condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The second ground that the respondent was not given an opportunity of being heard is not supported by any evidence. The date of hearing of 4.1.2001 was communicated to the respondent by notice issued on 29.11.2000. It is next contended that the Tribunal's decision in CC v. Nesha Plast Industries 1999 (113) ELT 93 has not been considered. That decision related to exemption under notification 29/79,m and not exemption under notification 224/89 with which the bench was concerned wi...

The National Leathercloth Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The two orders of the Commissioner impugned in these appeals confirm the liability of the appellant to pay duty on goods imported by it, holding that the exemption contained in notification 203/92 is wrongly extended to the goods that it imported and that it was not available for the reason that one of the condition in the notification that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of the exported goods is contravened.3. Notice issued to each of the appellants was beyond six months from the relevant date and invoked the extended period contained in the proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. It alleged that "the said fact of availment of input stage credit was deliberately suppressed or wilfully mis-stated by the licence holder in the various shipping documents namely shipping bills, AR4 etc. and a false declaration was made in the various shipping bill regarding non-availment of credit under Rule 57A with fraudulent intention of duty benefits." ...

Cce Vs. Piramal Spinning and Wvg. Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(100)LC50Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Piramal Spinning & Weaving Mills, the respondent to this appeal, manufactured filament or staple fibre. It sent these fabrics for processing to processing houses. After receipt of the processed fabrics, it cut them into lengths as desired by the buyers, folder them and stamp the price and other particulars relating to the fabrics.While doing so, it took credit of the duty paid by the processor on these goods and utilised this credit towards the duty that it paid on the stamped, folded and packed fabrics that it cleared. The respondent's declaration under Rule 57G expressing its intention to take credit of the duty paid on the processed fabrics was sent by it to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner replied advising the respondent that it was not entitled to take credit as the processes to which it subjected the fabrics were not manufacture as defined by law. The respondent however did not accept this clarification and wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Excise, ...

Luckyston Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on the applicant for the reason that the marble that it imported was found to be in excess of the quantity declared by it.2. The counsel for the applicant contends that there was a practice in the department of condoning such excesses as being in accordance with the trade practice and relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Siddharth Polymers v. CCE in appeal C/152/00.3. It is not possible for us to say whether at the time when the importation was made, the department's practice had changed of which note is taken in the decision referred to by the counsel for the applicant. Taking these into account, we consider a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh to be appropriate. On such deposit being made within a month from the receipt of this order, we waive deposit of the balance and stay its recovery....

Solid and Correct Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These seven applications relate to seven appeals arising out of a common order of the Commissioner. These Applications are therefore disposed of by this common order.2. The Applicants' case was argued by Shri Vikram S. Nankani, Revenue was represented by Shri Shaikh.3. M/s. Solid Steel Plant Manufacturers (SSPM), M/s. Solmec Earthmovers Equipments (SEE) and M/s. Solid & Correct Engineering (SCE) manufactured goods falling under Heading 8429.00 and 8474.10. These goods were essentially used for building construction or road construction. Their entire production was sold to M/s. Solidmec Equipments Ltd. (SEL). M/s. Solex Electronic Equipment (Solex) manufactured Control Panels, Boards, etc. and sold all their production to M/s. SEL. Shri Hasmukh Dodia was Director of M/s. SEL. Dhiraj Dodia was a Partner of M/s. SEE.) 4. Vide Show Cause Notice it was alleged that the goods cleared by SSPM, SEE and SCE were not complete machinery attracting duty @10% but they were parts attracting ...

Krishna Filament Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE and Poly Propylene Ropes falling under Chapter 54 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their factory at Boisar, Thane District were required to import various machineries for the manufacture of the above goods and for this purpose they applied on 16.10.1997 for grant of licence under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 to establish a Private Bonded Warehouse in their factory premises.A licence was issued to them and subsequently, during the period 28.11.1997 to 17.8.1998 they imported 16 consignments of capital goods namely wire rope making machines in knocked-down condition and the consignments were warehoused in the Customs Private Bonded Warehouse on execution of double duty bond. They applied for an EPCG licence for import of these goods, which was given to them on 13.2.1998. On 6.1.1998 they applied to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for permission to assemble the machinery lying in...

Ramvilas Shivlal Navandar and ors. Vs. Biharilal @ C.R. Ray and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj467

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1.This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Pune dated September 4, 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1986.2. Briefly stated the Petitioners landlords filed suit for possession against Biharilal @ C.R. Ray, who was original Respondent No. 1 in this writ petition, and also against Respondent No. 2 herein, for recovery of possession of the suit premises on diverse grounds under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, However, this writ petition is pressed only with regard to the ground of default.3. The facts relevant to examine the said ground of default are that the said Biharilal (since deceased) was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises bearing House No. 696, Raviwar Peth, Pune city on monthly rent of Rs. 9/-. According to the Petitioners, since the tenant was in arrears for more than 6 months, demand notice was issued under Section 12(2) of Bombay Rent Act, on 20-1...

Simplex Enterprises and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR168; [2002]257ITR689(Bom)

1. Heard. Shri Mehta by pointing out a letter written to the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, Mazgaon, Bombay, dated October 10, 1997, submitted that the petitioners repeatedly sought for the production of the documents seized by the Sales Tax Department in the raid but his request was not granted. He further submitted that though such request was made to the Assessing Officer, he did not pay any heed to it and proceeded further with disposing of the claim of the Revenue against the petitioners. He submitted further that the revisional authority also did not look into this genuine grievance of the petitioners and proceeded further in passing order rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners. Shri Mehta submitted that thus the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the revisional authority are orders passed against the petitioners without hearing them and, therefore, those orders are 'ex parte' orders. He submitted that, the order passed by the revisional authority...

G.R. Kadam and Sons Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom330; 2002(3)BomCR180

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard.2. The Petitioner is praying this Court for issuing the Writ of Certiorari as well as the Writ of Mandamus for relieving him of the pecuniary liability of paying the amount of Rs. 2,53,492 towards the water meter charges in respect of Dhobi Ghat for washing the clothes of J.J. Hospital, Municipal Group of Hospitals, in view of the tender floated by the Dean of the J.J. Hospital, Municipal Group of Hospitals. The terms of the tender are indicated by Annexure Exhibit A. By condition No. 15, the person bidding for tender was to be given the place known as Dhobi Ghat in the premises of the J.J. Hospital. Municipal Group of Hospitals for washing the Hospital linen and if any damage is caused to the said Dhobi Ghat, he was to compensate towards the said damage caused. As per condition No. 21, an amount of Rs. 2.000/- was to be deducted per month as approximate water charges and the said amount was to be adjusted after receipt of final bill from the proper authority. T...