Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Indian Drugs and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal was filed on 25.3.1996. The appellant is a public sector corporation. In terms of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of ONGC (1992 (61) ELT 3 an authorisation from the Committee of Secretaries is required to be filed where an appeal is filed by public sector undertakings. Notices were sent to the appellants directing them to furnish the certification with the caution that failure to file the same would result in dismissal of their appeal. Today when the case was called out, the clearance certificate is not placed on record. No representative is present. It is claimed that the matter has been taken up with their head office for being taken up with the government. This is an unsatisfactory situation. The first step required to be taken has not been taken, even after a lapse of nearly five years. We therefore dismiss this appeal giving liberty to the appellants to seek restoration on receipt of the required clearance....

M/S. Apsara Art Materials P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case were operating under the benefit of notification 175/86-CE which permitted total clearances of rupees thirty lakhs without payment of duty provided that the clearances of individual products did not exceed rupees fifteen lakhs as face value.The unit cleared certain goods without payment of duty as also on payment of duty and subsequently effected clearances of another product without payment of duty. The assessees relied upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of EL.P.M Industries vs. CCE 1989(24) ECR. The Commissioner however relied upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of B.K. Rubber Industries (P) Ltd vs. UOI 1993 (68) ELT 2. Shri G. M. Ignatius submits that the issue has been finally decided by the Tribunal in the case of Solar Packaging Ltd. (1999 (30) RLT 867). In this case the Tribunal has chosen to follow the Khalsa Paper and Pulp judgment, which in turn followed the EL.P.M Industries judgment. The EL.P.M. Industries judgment was...

Collector of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Jupiter Cement Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT561Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals from the Revenue involve the same state of facts and are therefore taken up together for disposal in this single order.2. Both the respondents had taken benefit of notification 23/89-CE dated 1.3.1989. The notification required certification of certain parameters by the Director of Industries in the State Government or by the Development Commissioner for Cement in the Government of India. The respondent had filed a certificate by the Joint Commissioner of Industries in the State Government. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit on the ground that the conditions prescribed in the notification had not been satisfied. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the claim was made that in the State Government there was no authority by the name Director of Industries but that the officer was designated as Commissioner of Industries. In the face of this submission, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the certification made by the Joint Commissioner resulting in these appeals by...

Competition Printing Press Vs. Jaiprakash Singh and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR809]; (2001)IILLJ1341Bom

R.J. Kochar, J.1. It is the case of the Respondent workman, who indeed was not at all interested in reinstatement but still continued to carry on this extremely vexatious litigation obviously to extract or knock out some money from the employer.2. According to the petitioner, the Respondent workman joined the employment on and from March 1, 1986. Soon thereafter on and from November 10, 1989 he started remaining absent without leave or permission. It appears that on November 16, 1989 he approached the Government Labour Officer to lodge a complaint that the petitioner employer had illegally and wrongfully terminated his service w.e.f. November 10, 1989. It further appears that the Government Labour Officer called both the parties on November 29, 1989 to resolve their dispute, but he could not do so. On that date the petitioner attended the office of the Government Labour Officer and submitted that the workman himself was remaining absent and that he was never terminated from employment ...

M/S. the Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants make Plastic Crates for carriage of bottles. Certain moulds had been imported by them where credit of the CVD was taken under Rule 57Q on 6.10.95 and on 10.1.96. The crates so manufactured were cleared on Nil rate in terms of a notification. Rule 57R of the Central Excise Rules 1944 does not permit credit to be taken where the capital goods are used exclusively for production of goods eligible for clearance without payment of duty. During October 1995 to January 1996 all crates so cleared were at nil rate of duty. Therefore the show cause notice was issued seeking reversal of the credit taken. The Commissioner confirmed the reversal of Rs. 1413487.30. The assessees filed an appeal and this application for waiver of predeposit thereof.2. Shri MH Patil submits that the same moulds apart from producing crates also produced scrap which were final products cleared on payment of duty and therefore the capital goods could not be called as used 'exclusively for manufacture o...

M/S. Crown Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A reference had been made by us to the Larger Bench of settlement of the issue whether in operating under Rule 251(2) of the CHALR 1984, the requirement of show cause notice was mandatory. It is our opinion that in final disposal of the appeal for which early hearing is sought, this will be a material issue. There fore we are unable to accept this request. Shri VM Doiphode submits that in the meanwhile we stay the operation of this order. We see very little propriety in doing so especially when the Larger Bench decision is expected any time.2. We give liberty of Shri V.M. Doiphode to mention the matter in the Court, when the Larger Bench decision is available and then we would take up the matter for disposal immediately thereafter....

Carl F. Peters and Capt. Jens Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC203

1. Appeal C/653/96 is by Carl F. Peters, the owner of the ship, is against the order of the Commissioner for confiscation of M.V. Wilma, appeal C/654/96 is by Capt. Jens Werner, the captain of he ship against penalty of Rs. 1 crore imposed under Section 112 of the Act.2. The facts leading to the order by the Commissioner are briefly these. The ship Wilma called at Bombay port in September 1995. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, acting apparently on prior information kept a watch on the ship. They searched three persons found near the ship and recovered from Kaizer Hussein, one of them, 200 pieces of foreign marked gold each weighing 10 tolas. On the statement of Kaizer Hussein, the gold had been given to him by David Macaso, who was a member of the crew of Wilma, they rummaged the ship unsuccessfully. After the rummaging was complete the bo'sun of the ship found another two belts each containing 100 pieces which beneath a frame on which the containers rested and...

M/S. Wimco Pen Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC493

1. These two applications relate to two appeals filed by the same appellant. The issues being same these applications were taken up together. On hearing Shri S N Sejpal for the applicants and Shri A K Jain for the Revenue, we felt that the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done, by granting waiver of predeposit of duties totally amounting to Rs.24,08493/- and penalties of Rs.1,25,000/-.2. The appellants imported certain goods on the strength of advance licences and cleared them without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 203/92-CUS. At a later date show cause notices were issued alleging that in the manufacture of export products, input stage credit had been taken. The assessees did not file any reply nor did they appear for personal hearing. In his Ex-parte orders the Commissioner of Customs confirmed the duties and imposed the penalties as mentioned above. Hence the present appeals.3. On behalf of the appellants it is stated that when the show caus...

M/S. Sarda Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The demand in the case was confirmed on the ground that the cash discount was not shown to have been granted to the customers. Shri SS Gupta shows us and relies upon Tribunal judgement in the case of Commissioner of Cen.Ex.vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. We find that the judgement to covers the situation in favour of the assesses. We therefore grant waiver of predeposit of the duty confirmed of Rs.2,97,002/- and peanlty of Rs.10,000/- and stay the recovery thereof....

H.K. Dave Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT643Tri(Mum.)bai

1. H.K. Dave, the appellant before us, was licensed in 1992 as a custom house agent at Kandla under the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984. The licence was duly renewed until 1.7.95 when it was renewed for a further period of five years. Shankarlal Dave, one of the firm's five partners, was the person who was qualified to conduct custom house work Shankarlal Dave fell ill in 1997, and after a prolonged illness, died in 1999. Subsequent to his death, the firm applied on 7.9.99 to the Commissioner for grant of a fresh licence under Regulation 16. This regulation reads as follows: 2. It is stated that this application is still pending before the Commissioner. In the meantime, notice dated 13.4.2000 was issued to the appellant from the Commissioner proposing revocation of the licence on the ground that during the periods 1997-98, 1998-99 and part of 1999-2000, the appellant had not conducted the minimum business required Regulation 12(2) permits the Commissioner to prescribe t...