Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Goodwill Clothing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri J.C. Patel, advocate for the applicants and Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue, it appeared that for the reasons recorded below, the final appeal itself could be disposed of. This was done by granting waiver of the pre-deposit of Rs. 16,78,510/- and penalty of equal amount.2. The appellants were in possession of an advance licence. On the strength of the exports made the licence was made transferable and was transferred to Verma Chemicals. The goods were imported by Verma Chemical against the licence. At a later date the show cause notice was issued alleging that since in the manufacture of export products, input stage credit had been availed of, the benefit of notification 203/92 was not available and the duties were chargeable and penalties were imposable. The present appellants placed before the Commissioner copy of the relevant AR4 duly signed by the jurisdictional central excise authorities where it was certified that input stage credit had not been availed of. ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Fibro Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is whether the electroplating of copper wire undertaken by the respondent to this appeal amounts to manufacture and results in the product being classifiable under heading 85.39 of the tariff. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has overruled the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the process is one of manufacture, resulting in the emergence of a commodity classifiable under heading 8539.2. The process undertaken by the respondent appears to have been considered as manufacture only for the reason that it resulted in the emergence of a commodity which was different form copper wire. The appeal does not question the finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) that the classification ordered by the Assistant Commissioner was without issue of a show cause notice. His finding that there is no material on the basis of which the Assistant Commissioner has concluded that the goods were to be used ...

M/S. Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri A.V. Naik, advocate for the applicants and Shri B.K.Choubey for the Revenue, it appeared that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done, on granting wavier of pre-deposit of Rs.9,73,554.43 confirmed as duty and penalty of Rs.50,000/-.2. Show cause notice dated 19.6.1998 was issued to the present appellants alleging breach of conditions of notification 203/92 and demanding the duty as mentioned above. The ground was that the manufacturer of the export products had availed of inputs stage credit.The importers did not file a formal reply but were present on the occasions when the case was posted for hearing. Shri Naik states that the appellants were not represented on the date of final hearing. He however maintained that immediately on realization of their error they had reversed modvat credit and that documentary evidence to that extent and effect was available with them. He submits that the reversal was made even before the A...

M.L. Tandon, V.B. Kesarkar, V Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Common counsel for the appellants pray for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the issue has been settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998, producing a certificate issued to this effect by the designated authority....

ideal Sheet Metal Stampings and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC810

1. The appellant imported a consignment of goods declared to be "regrind polycarbonate". The classification was claimed of the goods under heading 3907.40 of the Customs Tariff and heading 39074000 of the ITC Policy for the purposes of importation. Examination of the goods by the department and the Indian Institute of Technology, Powai, showed the goods to be "Transparent Grinded Sheet Piece in Aglo form of size 4-10 MM." From this, the department concluded that the goods is nothing other than the scrap of plastic classifiable under heading 39.15 of the tariff and the corresponding entry no 3915.9015 in the Import Policy.The policy required a licence for the goods falling under this heading and in the absence of this licence; notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act and penalty on the importer under Section 112 of the Act. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the goods are nothing other than plasti...

Purnesh A. Shah and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC175

1. These four applications relates to four appeals arising out of the same impugned order. These are therefore being dealt with in this common order.2. Some Radio Cassette Tape Recorders were seized from a godown which at the material time was in the Custody of, Shri Purnesh Shah first applicant. Shri Purnesh Shah is the brother of the other two applicants namely Ashok A. Shah and Hemant A. Shah. These two brothers along with Deepak Doshi and Indira Shah are the partners in M/s. A.D. marketing Company.3. M/s. A.D. Marketing Company is the partnership firm consisting of partners namely Shri Deepak Doshi, Shri Hemant Shah and Smt. Indira Shah. Shri Hemant Shah claimed the goods. After recording of the statements, the show cause notice was issued alleging that the seized goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act. It was claimed that under Section 123 the responsibility to establish licit imports was on the noticees. It was claimed that requireme...

Arjandas Metal Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC186

1. The captioned applications are for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 51,66,209 confirmed on clandestine clearances of copper patties on invoices reused by the manufacturer by altering the time of removal and denial of modvat credit of Rs. 13,28,057 availed on documents without actual receipt of inputs i.e. copper scrap and imposition of penalty of amount equal to the duty and credit denied and penalty of Rs. 50,000 on Shri Arjandas T. Kashyap, Managing Director of the company and penalty of Rs. 5,000 on Shri Suresh Shetty, Excise Clerk.2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nankani, Ld. Counsel for the applicants and Smt. Reena Arya, Ld. SDR for the Revenue. The submission of the applicants regarding the duty demand is that there is an order dated 25.10.1999 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dropping the proceedings in respect of clearances on 17.1.1996 which was based upon the charge that an invoice used for clearance of copper wire in the morning of that date has been reused...

Mohan Suryabhan Chandan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1106; 2002(2)MhLj203

R.K. Batta, J.1. Admit. With the consent of learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. heard forthwith.2. The petitioner was released on parole under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. for a period of 15 days w.e.f 14-1-1998. The parole was granted on the ground of illness of his mother. Within 3 days of his release on parole, the petitioner moved an application for extension of parole on the ground of illness of his mother for 75 days. This application was finally rejected on 16-4-1999. However, since no order had been received by the petitioner for extension of parole, it was his duly to have reported back after completion of 15 days of parole since by merely filing an application for extension of parole, the period of parole does not automatically stands extended. The petitioner reported back after overstay of 149 days. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the Jail authorities. The explanation given by the petitioner in pursuance of the s...

Bombay Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Daily Taj Private Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom263; 2001(2)ALLMR629; 2001(3)BomCR715; (2001)2BOMLR1007; 2001(3)MhLj21

ORDERR. M. Lodha, J. 1. This first appeal is at the instance of Bombay Municipal Corporation and the Assessor and Collector, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court whereby the appeal filed by the present respondent under section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act has been allowed and the Appellate Authority directed the present appellants to cancel or withdraw the letter dated 30th December, 1999 and further asked them to refund the amount of Rs. 37,08,000/- to the present respondent.2. By way of an agreement entered into between the present respondent with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (M.T.N.L.), the present respondent was given work of printing of the telephone directory. As per the agreement, the telephone directory was printed by the present respondent in four volumes. Out of these four volumes, first three volumes contain the residential address of subscribers of M.T.N.L. in Bombay and t...

Smt. Sunita Hanumant Fulore Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)794; 2001BomCR(Cri)753; (2001)3BOMLR241; 2001CriLJ2472

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this Writ Petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes herself as the wife of the detenu Hanumant Kathod Fulore, has impugned the order dated 11.10.2000 passed by Respondent No. 2 Mr. S. M. Shangari. Commissioner of Police. Thane, detaining the dclcnu under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Dru Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981. (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act.)2. The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 11.10.2000, was served on the detenu on 16.10.2000 and their true copies have been annexed as Exhibit A collectively to this petition.3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention. Their perusal shows that the impugned order is founded on two C. Rs. namely, C.R. No. 1-56/1999 under Section 326....