Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Ciens Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals relate to the same appellants and arise from the same set of facts they are therefore being disposed of vide this single order.2. We have heard Shri GC Biradar Advocate for the appellants and Shri AK Jain for the Revenue.3. The assessees manufacture medicaments. They had declared the price as applicable to wholesale dealers, which had been duly approved. The assessees were also clearing Physician samples which were not sold but were given to the Doctors. For such clearance the assessees resorted to the cost plus method of computation of the assessable value. After issue of show cause notice the Assistant collector held that the prices of such samples would be computed pro-rata on the valuation of the trade packs. This judgement was up held by the Collector (Appeals), resulting in Appeal No. E/3430/93 A being filed before us. the other two appeal relate to the confirmation of differential duty totally amounting to Rs. 7,58,945.49. These orders were also upheld by...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S. J.B. Impex, M/S. Navalji

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On examination of the application made by the Revenue, we are satisfied that an inadvertent error had crept into our Order No.CII/2562-67/WZB/2000 dt.18.9.2000. In modification thereof, we direct that in the preamble to the order the names of the respondents shall be read as below:...

M/S. Balaji Steel Re-rolling Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT619Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for condonation of delay. vide order dt.20.7.99 the jurisdictional Commissioner fixed the duty liability on determination of the Annual Production Capacity under Rule 96 ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeal should have been filed within three months but was filed nearly after 14 months. The applicant was without legal Counsel. On receipt of this order he was in continuous correspondence with the Commissioner for amendment thereof. Having been called for some hearing he was under the impression that the order was likely to be amended. Only when the follow up action was undertaken did he realise that the order passed by the Commissioner was not to be amended. He thereafter filed the appeal.2. Ordinarily we would be loath to condone such long delay but in the circumstances as explained we think that condonation is required. We also find that the order is not accompanied by a preamble informing the assessee as to what steps to take in case of the cont...

M/S. the Associated Film Vs. Commissioner(Cen-excise)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT905Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application is for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 5,41,000/- confirmed as duty and stay of recovery thereof. In her order the Commissioner held that Cinematographic Processing Chemicals as well as the residual Chemical preparations were excisable goods and leviable to duty. Before her a number of citations were made where in identical circumstances such preparations and residues were held to be not excisable. The rationale was that these goods were transient in nature and were not marketable. The Commissioner distinguished these judgements holding that in the case before her, evidence in the form of invoices as well as catalogue existed to establish that such goods were marketable and were being marketed regularly.2. Shri Mohan Jayakar Ld. Advocate arguing on behalf o f the appellants showed that the invoices under citation pertain to chemicals for developing still photography. He submits that Cinematographic Processing Chemicals were not marketed in this manner and that each lab...

irfan Abdul Haque Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT441Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant before us imported a consignment of goods, described in the air way bill issued by the carrier as "personal and household goods." Acting on the information that they had received, the Customs officers examined the goods before any declaration has been made for its clearance and seized them. The goods consisted of mostly items in trade quantity for example 333 spectacle frames, 265 ball point pens, 641 watch straps. The passenger, on examination by the officers, admitted the purchase and import of the goods, saying that his intention was to sale them in order to make a profit. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has found that the goods could not be baggage, by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 5.6 of the Export Import Policy 1997 2002; that most of the goods were prohibited for import without a licence. He has therefore ordered their confiscation under Clause (d) of the Act, and imposed a penalty on the appellant.2. The contention of the Counsel...

Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT595Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged in manufacture of castings of alloy steel and copper to intended to be used (after performing further operations on them) as parts of power driven pumps. The classification claimed by the appellant of these goods under heading 84.13 of the tariff (as parts of power) and the benefit of entry 16 of the Table to notification 64/86, providing concessional assessment to parts of power driven pumps, was approved. Subsequently the department issued notices to the appellant, proposing to deny the notification on the ground that the castings required further finishing before they could be used as parts of pumps. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notices and also rejected the claim of the manufacturer that the extended period under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11A of the Act, which was invoked in the notice, would not be available. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the finding that the goods were not eligible for the benefi...

M/S. Union Deritend Precision, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants make investment castings. Sand moulds and wax patterns are used in making the base castings. Certain chemicals used in the preparation of such moulds were declared by the assessees as inputs in their declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules 1944, on 4.4.86. One more declaration was filed on 23.387 in connection with another chemical. In July 1987 the Central Board of Excise and Customs informed their officers that inputs used in manufacture of such accessories were not eligible inputs. Two show cause notices were issued seeking to deny the claim of modvat. At the same time the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner declined to acknowledge the declaration dt. 4.4.86 referred to above. These proceedings culminated in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On 6.6.90 the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the order was defective on the point of jurisdiction and directed reconsideration by the jurisdictional Commissioner. Shri V. Sridharan Ld. Couns...

M/S. Sanjay Sales Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application was called out, none appeared. However the issue being small, we have taken up the appeal for disposal on granting waiver of predeposit of Rs.2,53,963/-.2. The differential duty was charged on fuel oil and food items. The issue of the order in assessment was delayed by about six months. The appellant filed the appeal after about 30 days after the period prescribed for such filing before the Commissioner (Appeals). Since no application for condonation was made the Commissioner dismissed the appeal.3. Citing the Supreme Court judgement reported in [1992 (194) ITR 645].It is pleaded that even before the appeal is dismissed on limitation, personal hearing has to be given. It is also claimed that the assessees have a strong case on merits.4. On perusal of this submissions, we allow the appeal, remand the proceedings back to the Commissioner (Appeals), He shall condone the delay in filing of the appeal and proceed to hear the appellant on merits....

K.M. Ganatra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT799Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application the appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. We have heard Shri V.M. Doiphode Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue.3. The Commissioner of Customs (G) Mumbai on receipt of a letter from the Commissioner of Customs ACC, Mumbai, communicating circumstances in which the appellants had come to his adverse notice, suspended the Custom House Agent Licence of the appellants in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing, 1984.The appeal is against this order. The claim made is that for Sub-Regulation (2) to be invoked the offence must be of such magnitude that immediate action is required.4. At our instance the letter referred to the impugned order was called for and perused. The letter from the Commissioner of Customs ACC refers to a case of seizure of Mobile Phones. It states that the present appellant had permitted their licence to be used by their own employees and there...

Dr. Nareshkumar Bansantilal Palvia and anr. Vs. the State of Maharasht ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1116; 2001BomCR(Cri)811; (2001)2BOMLR524

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are practising doctors have made the following prayers :-(a) direct the respondent No- 4 to take appropriate disciplinary action against P.S.I. Bagwan i.e. respondent No. 2: (b) the respondents be directed to award a token compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to both the petitioners who had to suffer humiliation at the hands of P.S.I. Bagwan who has flagrantly violated the directions of law; (c) grant the petitioners such other and further reliefs as the facts and circumstances of this case so warrant. 2. The factual matrix (as per the averments made in this writ petition) from which this petition arises in short is as under :-The Petitioner No. 1 Dr. Nareshkumar Basantilal Palvia (hereinafter also referred to as Dr. Palvia) is a qualified M.B.B.S. doctor and proprietor and owner of 'Palvia Clinic' situated at Gadab within the limits of Taluka Pen, District Raigad. The ...