Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Hariom Silk Mills Jayesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two cases were posted for admission and for hearing the stay applications. On hearing Shri Saiyed for the applicants and Smt. Arya for the Revenue I find that the issue being small, the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the mills and of Rs. 16,000/- on Shri Jayesh Rameshchandra Gandhi, partner thereof.2. During a visit of the Central Excise officers to the mills, excess of goods over their RG-1 balance was noticed.These goods were seized.They were provisionally cleared on bond. In adjudication proceedings these goods were confiscated but were granted redemption on payment of fine and penalty. Shortage of goods valued Rs.4,24,050/- was noticed.Duty amounting to Rs. 42,405/- on this amount was confirmed. Penalty aforementioned was imposed.The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld this order the present appeals are filed.3. Shri Saiyed submits that in the absence of any preparation for...

M/S. Vipor Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri J.C. Patel for the applicants and Smt. Arya for the Revenue the appeal itself was taken up for disposal granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed.2. Against the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commission the present appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with the stay application. The learned Commissioner disposed of the stay application by order dated 19/11/1999 directing certain pre-deposit to be made. In doing so he did not call the appellant before him for a personal hearing. A modification application was filed before him. He did not take any cognizance thereof. He dismissed the appeal before him for failure of the appellants to comply with the order. In doing so also he did not invite the appellants for hearing.3. In the situation such as this where the Commissioner (Appeals) has repeatedly contravened the provisions of principles of natural justice this Tribunal has allowed the appeals and ...

inox India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the Stay application, it appeared that on a short point the appeal itself could be decided. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 20,03,716.85, confirmed as duty and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellants.2. We have heard Shri J.C. Patel for the appellants and Shri J.M.Jeorge for the Revenue.3. The appellants M/s. Inox India Ltd. had two plants called as Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2 situated adjacent to each other. Both had separate Central Excise Registration Numbers. Both Registration Certificates showed the manufacturers as Inox India Ltd. As a later date the appellants saw a Trade Notice 1994 (74) E.L.T. T-5. In terms of the Trade Notice, the facility of having one Registration for two or more units situated in adjoining premises owned by the same manufacturer was offered. The appellants therefore sought cancellation of one registration so as to bring both units inside one registration. This application was made on 25-11-1996. The...

M/S. Mamta Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two applications relate to two appeals filed against the same common order. They therefore taken up together for orders.2. When the cases were called out the applicants was not present. On the last occasion also the appellants were absent and unrepresented. On examination of the issue I find them to be small and capable of being decided on the basis of law given by the Tribunal. I therefore proceed to decide the two appeals.3. From the registered premises of M/s Mamata Silk Mills Ltd. manmade fabrics in finished condition were seized since they were not accounted for in the statutory records. Shri M.M. Singhvi, the Director of the mills in his statement admitted that he was incharge of the day to day affairs. He also confessed that the fabrics were not recorded in the register since they had intended to remove the fabrics without payment of duty. These goods were confiscated but were allowed redemption on payment of fine and the guarantee bond was ordered to be proceeded upon...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Servitor Marketing and Export ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT933Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal from Revenue was argued by Shri B.K. Choubey. The respondent were not present.2. The respondent imported lubricants claiming importability under OGL and stating that the items did not fall under the negative list. The Assistant Commissioner 2.75 kgs to 20 kgs and therefore held that they were consumer goods in terms of Para 7(12) of the Exim Policy 1992-97.He held import to be unauthorised and confiscated the goods prescribing fine and penalty. The importers filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods did not directly satisfy human needs.These goods were first to be used in the machinery to enable the machinery to produce goods for human consumption. According to him the lubricants by themselves were not consumer goods. He allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.3. Shri Choubey very strong relies on Tribunal judgement in Southern General Trading Company Ltd. Vs. CCE 1995 (77) ELT 592. In this judgement the Tribunal held that such oil and lubrica...

Safari Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT394Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods described as doctor's briefcases. Neither side disputes that the articles consists of the outer shell of a briefcase internally adopted, by means of a melted plastic tray fitted with screws on either side to the bracket attached to the side apparently to carry tools of physicians' profession. It is contended that inside of the top half has also been somewhat modified in order to carry ampoules and bottles of medicine. Both sides agree that the articles would be classifiable under Heading 4201 as travel goods and handbags or similar container.The dispute is classification under sub-heading 10 or sub-heading 90.Among the articles classifiable under sub-heading 10 are briefcases, all sorts. The department finds the article, notwithstanding the adaptation made to its particular portion a briefcase, all sorts. The manufacturer contends it to be other than briefcase and hence classifiable under sub-heading 9...

Syrian Arab Airlines Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT625Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Granting the prayer for early hearing, the appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The appellants paid Foreign Travel Tax amounting to Rs. 3,26,7007- for the month of August, 1996 twice, once in October 1996 and once in January 1997. This error came to their notice during the course of audit. They thereafter filed an application for refund on 9-2-1998. The Assistant Collector held that in terms of the relevant Rules, the application for refund had to be made before expiry of six months from the date of payment of the tax in respect of which the refund was claimed. He dismissed their claim as barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the dismissal, the present appeal is before us.2. Shri V.M. Adwani ld. Counsel appearing along with Shri Rajesh Shah, Advocate submitted that the issue of refund should be governed under the Indian Contract Act, where it is the liability of a person who has wrongly received any amount to return it to the person who gave the amount.3. Th...

Palak Laser Video Club Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT144Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a case of seizure of Laser Discs. Counsel states that discs did not fall under the purview either of Section 123 of Customs Act or Chapter IV A thereof. He submits that adequate evidence has been placed on record to establish lawful importation of the seized goods. He relies upon an order of the Government of India bearing No. 32 & 33/97, dated 22-1-1997 which shows that the CIF value of LDs was Rs. 200/-.Smt. Reena Arya submits that the market value could be higher. However, I find that it cannot be as high as Rs. 2000/-.2. On the ground over valuation also on the ground that goods are not notified I grant the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 65,000/-....

Shri Suresh Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC177

2. The applicant, Shri Suresh Agarwal was the proprietor of M/s. Ishaan Exports and the sole authorised person of M/s. Asheema Fashion Pvt.Ltd.; Ms. [M/s] Asheema Exports and M/s. Ishaan International of Ahmedabad. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai had imposed penalty of Rs. 4 crores on him. Demands of duty were confirmed against the 4 units named above. Another person namely Mr. A.B.Pokharkar, CHA was penalised to the extent of Rs. 2 crores. The basis for the levy of penalties was that by using formal Bills of Lading, evidence of export was created, signatures of famous agency officials were forged on the documents against such nonexistent and bogus exports. Advance licence were obtained and duty-free imports were made/These actions were jointly undertaken by Mr. Agarwal and Mr.Pokharkar. Against this order, the appeals were filed by the units and also by Mr. Suresh Agarwal along with stay applications.3. Mr. Suresh Agarwal was directed by the Tribunal vide Order No....

Leela Dhar Maheshwari and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC182

1. Each of these two appeals is against the common order of the Collector enhancing the value of the ball and roller bearing imported by the appellant, a penalty upon the appellant under Section 112 of the Act. In his order, the Commissioner has applied the value for the bearings given in quotation of their Hungarian manufacturer.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that in the absence of any evidence of contemporary imports, or anything to show that the transaction value as reflected in the invoices was not acceptable, that value has to be accepted is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC . In the judgment, the Court has said that in the absence of an applicability of any of the exports contained in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation the transaction value has to be accepted. The Tribunal in its order in CC v. Nippon Bearings. P. Ltd. , while considering imports of such bearing from Hungary had not accepted the plea of...