Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Choice Corner Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.This application for condonation of delay is signed by the advocate and not by the appellant. It is therefore dismissed. Liberty is given to the appellant to file a fresh application....

Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Vs. Kantilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.The amount of redemption fine is 20,000/-, and penalty imposed on the respondent is Rs 5000/-. In coming to his conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals)has essentially, to a great extent, gone by the past practice of the clearance of the goods under consideration. In the circumstances, I decline to admit the appeal....

Indian Dyestuff Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT760Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order of the Tribunal out of which t his application arises is signed by Member (Technical and Member (Judicial). However, the counsel for the applicant points out that this is an error. The appeal was heard and disposed of only by Member (Technical) sitting single. This position on verification is found to be correct. A single member can hear and dispose of this reference application.2. In its order, the Tribunal had taken the view that amendment to a claim for refund of duty, filed after that application had been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, could not be entertained, since the redemption fine claimed did not survive. The appeal against the refund claim was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), when the application for amendment was made.3. Although five questions are framed for reference, the counsel for the applicant says that it is question no. 4 that is to be referred and does not press the other questions. This is, "Whether the Tribunal should not have he...

M/S. Atic Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants imported certain goods and paid duty. At the time of clearance they found that the entire consignment was short landed. They therefore filed a refund claim. By a later issued on 09/12/1990 they were directed to file certain documents. These were filed on 15/03/100-/ However, the Assistant Collector passed ex-parte orders on 4/01/1994 disposing of the refund claim for want of production of certain documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) in a mechanical order upheld the rejection. Hence the present appeal.2. When the importer had complied with the query the Assistant Collector was wrong in disposing of the claim for non-production of some other certificates. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was equally wrong in upholding this order. The orders do not sustain. The appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remanded back to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs. He shall examine the documents placed on records by the importer. In case these documents are missing he sh...

Dilip Tryambak Deshmukh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT206Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)), imposing a penalty of Rs 10,000/- on the appellant under Rule 209A and Rule 210 of the Rules.2. The departmental representative explains that what is meant that he fabricated the truth and false statement. The so-called alleged fabrication is 3. After hearing the representative of the appellant at length, I find it difficult to accept the contention that there is in fact no false or incorrect statement made by Deshmukh. However, I do not propose to go into the details of this for the following reasons. The penalty was proposed, and imposed on Deshmukh not for the reason that he was responsible for the shortages and excesses which was found to be existing contrary but for the reason that he has given misleading statement with regard to shortages and excesses. The officers visited the factory and took stock of the material and the records on 8.2.1998.Deshmukh's statement was recor...

Kantibhai J. Kiyada Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In a lengthy and detailed order passed on 17.1.2001 after hearing the counsel for the applicant on the stay application filed by him, the Tribunal has ordered deposit of Rs 5000/- out of the penalty imposed of Rs 10,000/- on the applicant.2. It is claimed to day that this order has been complied with because Rs 10,000/- had been deposited by Kantibhai J Kiyada, the applicant on 17.9.1997.3. If the amount had been deposited on 17.9.1999, there was no necessity to file a stay application on 29.4.2000 for this amount.There was also no necessity for Mr P.V. Sheth, advocate for the applicant, to argued the matter eat length. All that he was required to do was to say that the amount had already been deposited and seek permission to withdraw the application. The order does not record his having said any such thing.Further, photocopy of the T.R.6 challand dated 17.9.1999, showing payment of an amount of Rs 10,000/- on 17.9.1999, showing payment of an amount of Rs 10,000/- on 17.9.1999, ref...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The very short issue for decision in this case is whether an endorsed bill of entry can become a modvatable document or not.2. The issue stands settled in favour of the assessee in a number of judgements. The judgement of the Tribunal cited in 1999 (113) ELT 219 CCE Vs. National Leather Manufacturing Company disposed of a reference application seeking reference of a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's earlier judgement on this issue. In disposing of the application the Tribunal reiterated that the bill of entry did not cease to be a duty paying document merely for the reason that it was endorsed. The issue involved having been decided I uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal....

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - Vs. Shruti Designs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from Revenue is filed against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where the basic issue pertains to grant of claim of rebate of Central Excise duty paid on goods exported.2. This case was posted for hearing of the compliance on certain procedural defects. Shri R.K. Ghadge, Learned Consultant points out that in terms of first proviso to Section 35(b) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal granting such rebate. Accepting the contention that the appeal is filed wrongly and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this appeal I dismiss the same....

Sridevi Tool Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Credit has been denied on the ground that the declaration was filed 2/1/2 months after receipt of the goods and there is no acceptable reason for condonation of the day.2. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeal) both have considered the explanation and found it unacceptable. The amount involved in Rs. 39,000/-. On the facts of this case, I decline to admit the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Exise Vs. M/S. Parimal Engineering

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri Jain for the Revenue it was felt that the appeal could be taken up for decision. Respondents were not present in spite of notice.2. The issue involved in the present case in admissibility of modvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner found the invoices covering the inputs to be defective. He made the following observation: "I have gone through the relevant invoices. The invoices in question are issued by dealers whoa re registered with the Central Excise department. The dealers have issued invoice No. 42 dated 24.9.1994 to 57 dated 26.1994 on perusal of the invoices it is observed that these invoices contain only Range/Division/Collectorate and rate of duty of the goods cleared by original manufacturer. However, these invoices do not indicate quantity value and amount of duty paid on the goods cleared by original manufacture as alleged in the show cause notice. In absence of these details the relevant invoices cannot be held as proper invoices for the purpose of avai...