Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In its order, the Tribunal found that while the show cause notice relied for its proposal to confiscate the cotton fabrics on the ground that benefit of notification 32/56 had been wrongly claimed, the Commissioner did not refer to any entry in any of the accounts books, except to refer very generally to various entries made in various accounts books. The Tribunal also found that the evidence relied upon by the Commissioner, statements of various persons would be of no help, since these statements were not referred to in the show cause notice.Therefor,it found that the order relies upon evidence which was not made known to the appellant.2. The application filed by the Commissioner alleges mistake in this order on the grounds which we will now proceed to discuss.3. It is first contended that the Commissioner has given his finding on the seized documents. We are entirely unable to agree. The Commissioner has merely said: "The department has gathered ample proof of the same (clearance...

Goel Airshrink (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT562Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. the Commissioner has held in his order impugned in the appeal that the benefit of notification 203/92 was wrongly availed of by the appellant for the reason that modvat credit was availed of in the manufacture of the goods exported, as a result of which an advance licence was granted to the appellant permitting it to import the goods in terms of the notification.3. The appellant is what is terms a merchant exporter; it did not itself undertake manufacture of the goods to be exported. The advance licence issued to it indicated the 'supporting manufacturer' to be Goel Packaging Industries. It is the contention of the advocate for the appellant that Goel Packaging Industries was never registered with the Central Excise authorities under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules and therefore could not have taken modvat credit. In his order NO. 1252 to 1255, passed shortly after the order impugned in th...

Kantilal Govindbhai Sagar Gold Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT809Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeals are taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Each of the appellants before us imported automatic chain making machines. These machines, we are told, are used to make gold chains.The common show cause notice issued to these and others proposed confiscation of the machines which had been imported by them, and sold thereafter, on the ground that the condition in the notification, that the import should be made by a registered exporter of gems and jewellery had bot been complied with. It alleged that although the importers had produced certificates from the Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council certifying them to be registered exporters, these certificates had been obtained by "falsely claiming that they were exporters". Duty was also demanded upon the machines imported by Gold Link, Trichur Italian Chains and Sardarmal Kasturchand and Company on the ground that the condition in the notification that the jewellery manufactured with the aid...

Jba Printing Inks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT387Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged inter alia in the manufacture of printing ink. Some consignments of the ink that is so manufactured were not accepted by the customers, being defective, and returned to it. The appellant thereupon took modvat credit of the duty paid by it on these goods when it cleared them earlier, and utilised the credit towards payment of duty on the inks obtained by reprocessing these goods. This was objected to by issue of notice, which alleged that in these circumstances Modvat credit was not available and that the provisions of Rule 173H had been contravened. Adjudicating on the notice the Additional Collector ordered reversal of the credit or its payment through PLA account and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant. His order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before the Tribunal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the appeal memorandum and heard the departmental representative.3. Bot...

Ratilal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT574Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in these appeals the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal in the notice to enhance the value of three consignments of Petri dishes, and two consignments of hygrometers imported by the appellant, ordered confiscation of Petri dishes which were seized with an option to redeem them on payment of fine, imposed penalty on Ratilal Thakkar, the proprietor and his son, Hiten Thakkar.2. The notice demanding duty is dated 13th April, 1999. The relevant dates for the five consignments in question, as defined in the Explanation below Section 28 of the Act, are 12-6-1997, 6-1-1998, 8-5-1998, 7-10-1998 and 26-10-1998. The notice did not invoke the extended period contained in the proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 28. Therefore, the notice is barred by limitation for all but the last consignment, being beyond six months from the relevant date.3. As for this consignment, the contention of the Counsel for the appellants is that there is no evidence of the undervaluat...

AmstrIn Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT842Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The explanation offered for seeking condonation of delay of 321 days in filing this appeal is as follows: 2. By the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal pending before him for failure to deposit the amount as ordered by him in his stay order. The applicant wrote to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 22nd October, 1999, enclosing a copy of the order passed on the stay application, in which waiver of deposit had been granted. There was no reply. Subsequently the applicant came to know, from the letter issued by the department asking it to pay the duty, that no action had been taken. It therefor wrote another letter to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 18th September, 2000 to which it received a reply on 17th October, 2000 saying that the only course left to it is to appeal to the Tribunal. The appeal has been filed on 22nd November, 2000.3. From this it will be clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) had mistakenly dismissed the appeal before him and tha...

Cce Vs. Niton Industries and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(96)LC52Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are the Revenue's appeals against Order-in-Original No. 76/90 dated 17.10.1990 [issued on 1.11.1990 in File No. V-Adj. (Ch. 84) 15-186/87] of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II. The appellant is aggrieved by the Collector's finding that there was no conclusive evidence of mutuality of interest among the respondents viz. M/s. Niton Industries, M/s. Inventa Valve Industries (Bombay) Private Ltd., and M/s. Niton Valve Industries Private Ltd. and, therefore, their clearances of the product in question were not liable to be clubbed together for denial of the benefits of SSI exemption.2. The impugned order had been passed in adjudication of the show-cause notice (SCN) dated 5.1.1988 issued by the Collector to the aforenamed three units and two individuals, namely Sh. V.R. Sharif and Sh. P.V.Jain. The gist of the allegations raised in the SCN was that M/s. Niton Industries had created the facade of two other units viz. M/s. Inventa Value Industries (Bombay) Private Ltd. and ...

Panditrao Chimaji Kalure Vs. Gayabai Panditrao Kalure

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom445; 2002(1)ALLMR840; 2002(2)MhLj53

1. The brief facts are that the appellant in Second Appeal No. 88/1984 viz. Gayabai w/o Panditrao Kalure (original plaintiff) had claimed that she was a legally wedded wife of Panditrao Chimaji Kalure (original defendant). Gayabai had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 193/1969 for grant of maintenance from Panditrao Chimaji Kalure and also claimed maintenance for the previous three years. In the said Regular Civil Suit, Gayabai had contended that they have been married for 11 years an4 that she has been living with her husband for a period of five years and eight months. In the year 1963, Panditrao Kalure had obtained a job as a teacher and he had declined to take her with him at the place of service at village Bhogalwadi. Gayabai had alleged that Panditrao Kalure, had ill-treated her. It appears that said Gayabai had also filed an application for maintenance under Section 488 of Criminal Procedure Code. In the said proceedings Panditrao Kalure had produced a Divorce Deed, mentioning that...

M/S. Liquid Controls (India) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the lower orders confirming duty of Rs.2,70,619.40 and imposition of penalty of equal amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as under rule 173Q(1) of Rs.35,000/-. The application is for waiver of pre-deposit of these sums and stay of recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.2. The appellants had foreign collaboration and were using the brand name of their collaborators on the final specified goods manufactured by them. In their claim, vide declaration dated 5.7.1993 in which benefit of notification 1/93 was claimed, there was no indication as to such use. Shri Patel showed us certain correspondence which revealed that the assessees had foreign equity and collaboration but there is no mention of any brand name in these documents. Subsequently, on crossing the value limits of duty free clearances, they made an application for grant of registration on 28.10.1993. They also filed a classif...

M/S. Pan International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 47,75,873/- confirmed as customs duty and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- as also stay of recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. On hearing Shri V.M. Doiphode, advocate for the applicants and Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue, it appeared that for the reasons to be recorded hereafter, the appeal itself could be taken up for deposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after granting waiver as asked for.2. The appellants imported certain goods free of duty under three advance licences vide a single bill of entry where the duty forgone was Rs. 15,91,957.75. Later three show cause notices were issued referring to the individual advance licences each seeking to recover the differential duty of Rs. 15,91,957.75. The charge in the show cause notices was that in the manufacture of export products the manufacturers had availed of input stage credit of excise duty. In doing so, the provisions of notification 203/92-Cus were cont...