Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this appeal was filed on 25.4.1996, copies of the order-in-original were not filed. From August, 2000 onward notices were sent to the appellants to make up this defect. In their reply dated 22.9.2000 it was claimed that the order was being traced out. On that ground an extension was applied for which was granted. Today when the case was called out, we find that the appellants are neither present nor have they reported compliance. Interims of rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the appeal is dismissed....

insulIn Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of two products manufactured by the appellant, Nomex laminated, coated or covered with plastic and non-woven fabrics coated laminated or covered with plastic.2. In its order in appeal E/4641/94 SB(WR), the Tribunal had accepted the classification claimed by the manufacture of heading 8546.00 for the Nomex, and remanded for consideration afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) the classification of the other product.3. For the reasons stated in that order, which shall form part of this order, this appeal is allowed with regard to Nomex and the classification of the second item is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)....

Kothari and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner suspending, by his order dated 17.5.2000, the Custom House Agent's licence issued to the appellant.2. The reason given in the order for suspension of licence is this. The appellant was engaged by Mohammed Sajid Ibrahim for clearance of the baggage imported Purshotham Annaldasula. Ibrahim signed the baggage declaration form filed in pursuance of a letter of authority signed by Annaldasula. The declaration form was for old and used clothes and blankets valued at Rs 1400/-, electronic items valued at Rs 4700/- and brick game at Rs. 1500/-. Examination of the baggage disclosed the presence in it of 10 mobile phones valued at Rs. 60,000/-. The department therefore concluded form these facts that the appellant did not have sufficient authority from the passenger to clear the baggage.3. The licence, as we have said, was suspended by suspended by order dated 17.5.2000 and continue to be under suspension as of to day. The notice under the...

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. Asian Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri M.H. Patil, advocate for the applicants and Smt.Reena Arya, SDR for the Revenue, we take up the appeal for disposal on granting waiver of Rs.17,23,796/- confirmed as duty and equal amount of penalty.2. Three show cause notices were issued in 1998 seeking recovery of customs duty on the goods imported under cover of advance licences on the ground that in the manufacture of export products modvat credit had been utilized. The Commissioner adjudicated these notices ex parte in his impugned order. He mentioned that the importers had not filed any reply nor had they appeared for personal hearing. In the appeal memorandum and orally the claim is made that the importers had never received any show cause notices. Therefore they did not have the opportunity to state their case before the Commissioner. Reliance is placed on a letter written by them to the central excise officers dated 10.7.1995. In this letter mention is made of reversal of certain modvate amounts. This rever...

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC204

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central excise, confirming the demand for duty issued to the appellant on the ground that the benefit of notification 170/70 would not be available for the samples of medicaments cleared by it, and imposing a penalty upon it under rule 173Q.2. Entry 24 of the Table to notification 170/70, as amended, exempted patent or proprietary medicaments from the payment of duty, if they were drawn for test for the reasons specified in the notification, and if the quantity did not exceed 1% by value of the total duty paid clearances during the proceeding month. One of the conditions subject to which the exemption was given provided that the conditions subject to which the exemption was given provided that the samples are packed in a form "distinctively different" for regular trade packing and is clearly and conspicuously market as "samples not to be sold." It is for the failure to comply with the condition that the benefit of the notificat...

Chalisgaon Textiles Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is absent and unrepresent despite notice. It is a public sector undertaking, and has not responded to the notice for production of no objection from the Committee of Secretaries of the Cabinet Secretariat.2. In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal itself and give the appellant liberty to revive the appeal if and when such clearance is received.3. The stay application and the application for condonation of delay do not survive are dismissed....

M/S. S.M. Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri S.S. Pathak, advocate for the applicant sand Smt.Reena Arya for the Revenue, it appeared that for the following reasons the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 8,91,842/- confirmed as duty and penalty of equal amount.2. The department authorities examined the pattern of clearance of the goods produced by the assessees. From the balance sheet they arrived at an assumed cost of production. They found that taking that assumed cost of production, the assessees had under valued the goods substantially.The demand for the differential duty was made. Before the Additional Commissioner it was claimed that the assessees were trading in certain goods also which figures appeared in the balance sheet and therefore the costing arrived at by the department was defective. It was claimed that the claim of suppression etc. could not be made where the RT12 returns were scrutinized and finalized. They have also given the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Ama Pvt Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard the departmental representative on this appeal filed by the Commissioner. The respondents is absent and has requested a decision on the submissions in the cross objection. These do not appear to have been filed.2. In the classification list filed the respondent effective from 1.4.1995, it had claimed the benefit of notification 1/93. The jurisdiction Assistant Commissioner passed an order in which he said that the value of the goods cleared in 1994-95, which was required to be considered to determine the eligibility of the notification, could not be verified because the records of the manufacturer had been seized by the preventive department. She therefore ordered provisional assessment under Rule 9B.3. The manufacture appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals).It contended that since the department had taken over the records, it was easy to verify the clearances for 1994-95 and this was not a ground for ordering provisional assessment. The Commissioner (Appeal...

Shri Dinesh Khimavat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver and stay of collection of Rs.50,000/- as penalty imposed on the appellant in terms of rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The manufacturer M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries who are engaged in the manufacture of plastic, moulded parts of domestic mixer falling under chapter sub-heading 8509.00 of the CETA. In October, 1992 searches were conducted and it was found by the authorities that the manufacturer has sold the goods manufactured by them to 67 parties in a clandestine way. For that purpose they could also obtain certain kachcha challans from the premises of the factory. The statement recorded from various persons one of which is a partner namely Pratik D. Jain, admits inter alia as reflected in paragraph 8 of the order that they sold the goods to various persons including the address of the purchaser of mixture grinder. Incidentally the purchaser is a company by name Kanchan Kitchen Aid Pvt. Ltd. The appellant is a director of the sa...