Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Kopergaon Ssk Ltd., Mula Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT343Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the assessable value of the molasses captively consumed by each of these appellants.Kopargaon SSK Ltd., appellant in E/678/96 had taken the assessable value of the molasses consumed by it between August and December 1994 at Rs. 850 per ton. The department has applied the price of Rs. 1300 to Rs. 1965 per ton. In the case of Ashok SSK, the assessee had taken for clearance between February and May 1995 the price of molasses as Rs. 850 per ton. The department has applied the price of Rs. 1000 to Rs. 1300 per ton. In the case of Mula SSK, the assessee had applied for October 1994 the price of Rs. 8.50 per ton. The department has applied the higher price ranging between Rs. 1500 and Rs. 1800 per ton.2. The basis for the department's action was that this was the price at which the goods were purchased by the Western Maharashtra Development Corporation (WMDC for short), for supply of distilleries run or operated by that government. The co...

HifIn Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT197Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion when it came to the light that only one appeal had been filed against the order of the Commissioner disposing of seven appeals before him, counsel for the applicant sought time to file other appeals. These appeals and application for condonation of delay have been filed but were not listed today. With concurrence of both sides we have taken up for hearing and the stay application.2. The delay of 195 days in filing these six appeals is explained as follows. From a reading of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the applicant was under the bona fide belief that it was a single order and therefore a single appeal would suffice. That appeal was filed on time.It was only when the bench pointed out that the Commissioner had disposed of six appeals, the fact came to be known.3. The Commissioner's order disposing of seven appeals bears seven numbers and seven appeals ought in fact have been filed in time. From the appeal that was filed, it w...

Mehta Trading House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three applications relate to three appeals filed against the common order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai.These are therefore dealt with vide this single order.2. M/s. Mehta Trading House Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as MTH imported glass Chatons S.B. Mehta and R.S. Mehta are directors in the Company of MTH. The Company imported such Chatons in 16 consignments between April 1991 to September 1995. In each case the goods were described as stock-lots and the same value of Austria Shilling 60 per kilo was declared. Each consignment was cleared after due examination.In certain cases queries were raised and settled. No samples were kept by the Customs of goods imported in any of the consignments.Subsequently on intelligence searches and inquiries were conducted from October 1995 onward. Statements were recorded. Faxed invoices apparently covering goods imported in the 16^th Consignment cleared vide Bill of Entry dt. 4.9.96 were recovered. At the end of the in...

Prakash Polyester P. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The only contention raised by the representative of the appellant before us is that they were not given copies of the document which were relied upon. The show cause notice issued to these persons by the Directorate of Anti Evasion indicated that the copies of the documents were enclosed to it. S.P. Thakkar Transport in its initial reply to the notice had made it clear that the reply was an interim reply in the absence of copies of documents which it had asked for. The case of other two appeals is somewhat more convoluted. They had initially accepted the document. They subsequently wrote asking for the documents relied upon by the department. Some of these were supplied and others were missing in the reply that they received.3. From the initial stand taken by each of the parties, the conclusion is inevitable that the reply to the show cause notice did not enclose, as it claimed, copies of the document. This has been the stand of S.P.Thakkar Transport also. There is contradiction in...

ispl Inds. Ltd., Vishrut Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These 7 appeals have common facts and arise out of the same order.They are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. manufactured excisable goods their factory in Thane. This activity was stopped in 1983. M/S. Uchit Investment & Traders P. Ltd. was a factory which came in existence in 1982. M/s.Vishrut Investment & Traders Pvt. Ltd. was a factory which came in existence in 1984. Excisable goods were not manufactured by M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. but by M/s. Vishrut and Uchit. There were no formal agreements entered into, but that the goods were got manufactured on job work basis. The raw materials were supplied by M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. and the goods were despatched to M/s.ISPL Inds. Ltd. or to their customer. The two job workers, M/s. Vishrut Investment & Traders Pvt.Ltd. and M/s. Uchit Investments & Traders Pvt. Ltd. had their own registrations under the Central Excise law as well as under other laws such as Shop and Establishment Act etc....

Asia World Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 43,909 and penalty of Rs. 35,000/-.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the ground that the goods that the applicant imported are not glass beads but imitation precious stones.4. We therefore find it appropriate to ask the applicant to deposit Rs. 30,000 within a month from the receipt of this order. Thereupon we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery....

Jupiter Exports, Gauri Shankar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT173Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For disposal of this application, the facts leading thereto, need to be spelt out in brief.2. M/s. Jupiter Exports fraudulently obtained advance licences and the DEEC books. They falsified export document invoices test reports etc.to inflate the value and varieties of exports. Thereafter they obtained by fraud transferability of the licences from the appropriate authorities. These licences were then sold/transfered to other persons.The transferee buyers imported certain goods without payment of duty.The Commissioner of Customs in adjudication held that M/s. Jupiter Exports were "deemed importers" in terms of Customs Notification No.204/92. He confirmed the duty upon M/s. Jupiter Exports and imposed penalties upon them and the three partners in the said firm. Against this judgment 4 appeals were filed which were disposed of by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. C-I/347-50/WZB/2001 dt 5.2.2001. Before the Tribunal the misdeeds of M/s. Jupiter Exports were pointed out by the department...

Asia Polytex (India) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 71.13 lakhs payable by Asia Polytex (India) Ltd. and penalty on it of equal amount and penalties on Sanjeev Khandelwal, its managing director of Rs. 20 lakhs, Hitesh P. Solanki, its manager of Rs. 15 lakhs.2. The issue on merits is debatable. However counsel for the applicant produces a letter dated 16.8.2001 of the assessee to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction which is registered as a reference. I these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Real Value Appliances 1998(5) SCC 544, we do not think that we are permitted by law to ask deposit by this applicant. We waive deposit of the duty demanded for it and penalty imposed on it,s but leave it to the department authorities to pursue to recover the amount, if so advised, in accordance with law.3. As far as the directors are concerned the Tribunal decision in Z.U.Alvi v. CCE 2000 (117) ELT 69 holding that provision of 209A do not a...

Marmo Classic Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT1019Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 70,000/-.The goods are stated to be pending clearance from the customs. Hence no application has been claimed for waiver of duty and fine.2. Penalty has been imposed on the ground that the applicant imported some quantity of marble without licence. Absence of such licence is not denied. In these circumstances, we direct deposit of Rs. 35000/- within a month from the receipt of this order. Compliance on 7.1.2002....

Allied Ferromelt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT237Tri(Mum.)bai

2. These four appeals are against the imposition of penalty on the applicant either under Rule 96ZO in the case of induction furnace and by 96ZP of the rolling mills or Rule 173Q.3. The penalty which is the subject matter of appeal E/326/01 has been imposed for late payment of duty Rs. 2 lakhs payable in terms of Rule 96ZP for late payment of duty between April and November 1998. Penalty in appeal E/327/01 under Rule 96ZO is for late payment between April and May 1999. Counsel for the applicant accepts the part of belated payments but requests leniency because the duty could not be paid due to shortage of funds. We do not find this explanation acceptable. The Rules 96ZP and 96ZO are a relaxation of the procedure that then existed of duty having to be paid before each consignment of goods. They require payment on the 15^th of each month and at the end of the month for the preceding fortnight. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for any leniency. Appeal E/327/01 also challeng...