Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Emjay Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The counsel for the appellant does not question the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the import licences which were produced for clearance did not cover the amoxycillin trihydrate imported by the appellant. He says that the matter has been settled by the judgement of the Madras High Court in the writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal. The High Court declined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal, on an appeal by the department against the Commissioner's order, that the licences were not valid for the goods imported. The matter thereafter went to the Commissioner for determination of fine and penalty. The Commissioner has determined a fine of Rs. 5.70 lakhs for redeeming the goods valued at Rs.18.62 lakhs, and penalty to Rs 1.00 lakh. He has found that the bona fides of the appellant had been established, and has relied upon the Supreme Court's judgement in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani vs Union of India 1990 (47) ELT 161.3. The counsel for the appellant co...

B.U. Bha Vs. Ar and Nishit Desai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Carefully, examined the impugned order, grounds of the appeal as well as those of the stay applications. Heard both sides.2. Applications are against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the adjudicating authorities order confiscation the imported goods with option for redemption thereof on payment of fine and imposing penalties on the present applicants. The lower appellate authority has, however, reduced the redemption fine and penalties as per the impugned order.3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the importer is agreeable for giving an undertaking to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs not to redeem the confiscated goods during the pendency of these appeals. On the basis of such an undertaking Learned Counsel prays for complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounts by following an earlier order of this Tribunal passed in a case involving identical facts. He has cited the stay order in the case of Data Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs 200...

Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT754Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application is directed against the order of the Tribunal, passed in terms of the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 35B of the Act, declining to admit the appeal of the assessee. The provisions of Sec.35C (2) of the Act will not apply to such an order....

Miltex Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC482

1. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to recover the notional modvat credit taken by the appellant on the goods obtained by it as inputs under the provisions of Section 11D of the Act. Adjudicating on the notice, the Asst.Commissioner confirmed this proposal, and his order has been upheld by the Commissioner(Appeal). Hence this appeal.2. Rule 57B contained, at the relevant time, the provision for motional modvat credit. It was evidently in the nature of an incentive to small-scale manufacturer. Goods manufactured by such persons were entitled to a lower rate of duty, contained in exemption notifications issued for this purpose. The rule enabled a manufacturer who received such inputs to take credit, in addition to the actual duty paid on the inputs, of the difference between the duty paid, and that payable but for the exemption. Thus, notional credit is in fact credit of duty which has not been paid.3. Sub section (1) of Section 11D provided that every person who has collecte...

M/S. Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of pre-deposit of rupees one lakh imposed as penalty. Shri Nankani refers to earlier order no.C-II/242/WZB/2001 dated 22.1.2001. He submits that the present imports are in continuation of the imports covered in the earlier order. He submits that the Custom House has bond of about three lakhs with them in the form of guarantees etc. Therefore the penalty of rupees one lakh is still secure. On this ground he requests for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. We grant this prayer on the understanding that the bank guarantee shall remain alive and shall be continued. Shri Nankani also submits that the redemption fine of rupees one lakh specified for release of one rough marble block is also secure against the remaining amounts of this guarantee and would request us to make directions to the Customs for the release of this consignment. We decline to do so on two grounds. Firstly, that the provisions of section 129E do not enable us to go into this aspect. The s...

Yazad Extrusions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Surat, denying the benefit of notification 175/86 to the appellant for the period between October 1986 and July 1991 on two grounds - firstly, that the investment in its plant and machinery exceeded the limit prescribed for such investment by the authorities competent to certify as a small scale industrial undertaking, and, secondly, that it was a "dummy" or "extended arm" of Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd (BHPL for short) and Besta Cosmetics Ltd (Besta for short), and that the value of the clearances of these two concerns was to be added to the appellant's clearance.3. Paragraph 4 of notification 175/86 makes the exemption applicable only to a factory which is an undertaking registered with the Director of Industries in any State or the Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industries) as a Small Scale Industries under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. At the relevant time, one...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Maruti Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing modvat credit to the respondents under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules on certain quantities of defective final products returned by their customers under Rule 17311. The respondents are not represented today. However, they have requested for a decision on merits.2. I have heard Learned DR representing the appellants. He submits that the impugned order allowing the modvat credit under Rule 57A is not sustainable on various grounds. One of the grounds, he cited, is that the respondents had not filed any declaration under Rule 57G declaring the defective final products as inputs. Yet another ground is that the rejected final products returned by the customers to the respondents for repairs and reconditioning never underwent the regular manufacturing process and therefore such goods could not have been considered to be inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Sanghi Organisation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT618Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals of the Revenue are directed against a common order passed by the Collector (Appeals). As per the impugned order, the Learned Collector (Appeals) held that the proper officer to make an order of provisional assessment was the Assistant Collector and, therefore the orders of assessment of RT-12 returns passed by the Range Superintendent of Central Excise were unsustainable in law.2. I am told today that above issue is only of academic interest. The Learned JDR representing the appellants reiterates the grounds of these appeals and prays for setting aside the impugned order. The Learned Consultant for the respondents submits that the proper officer empowered for making provisional assessment under the provision of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules was Assistant Collector as per notification issued under Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules. He has also brought on record a copy of the relevant notification issued on the basis of Board's circular No. 25/87.Cx.6 dated 12/5/...

M/S. International Shipping Vs. Commissioner of Customs(G)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These application for early hearing have been filed by three Custom House agents whose agency licenses were suspended by the Commissioner of Customs in terms of the provisions of Regulation 21(2) of .C.H.A.Licensing Regulation 1984.Appeals have been filed against this order.These applications are made on two grounds; firstly that the Commissioner erred in denying the principles of natural justice in as much as notices were not issued nor was any personal hearting given.The second ground made is that these three CHAs have employees whose livelihood has been affected because of the continuation of the suspension orders.2. We have heard Shri S.R. Naryanan, Consultant for the applicants and Shri J.M. George, JDR for the respondent.3. On hearing both the sides, we find that the issue having been settled by the judgment of the Larger Bench reported in 2001 (129)ELT 266,[Freightwings and Travles Ltd.], the main appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal.This was so done.4. In an id...

N.M. Sintered Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT639Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants in these appeals are manufactures of sintered products of steel and copper. This dispute in appeal No. E/3012/89 relates to demand of duty of Rs. 68,472.26 for period from 31/03/1986 to 30/06/1986, while in appeal No. E/524/89 the dispute relates to demand of total amount of Rs. 2,11,364.75 covering a period from July 1986 to September, 1987. The entire demand was based on classification on the aforesaid products under chapter sub-heading 84.83 of the Central Excise Tariff by the department. In deciding the classification, the department had rejected the classification proposed by the assessees for sintered products of steel and coper under chapter sub-heading 7308.90 and 7413.90 respectively and accordingly modified the classification list filed for the relevant period. This classification dispute has since been settled by the Tribunal in appeal numbers E/2000/89-SB and E/2698/99-B as per final order No.1247-1248/2000-B dated 14/08/2000 whereby the classification pr...