Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs (P), Vs. M/S. Global Telesystems (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No.C-II/2851-52/WZB/2000 dated 12.10.2000 the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the ground that it was not filed in terms of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.The Tribunal observed that in terms of this section, the appeal had to be filed by the Commissioner itself and that the Commissioner should not delegate the filing to another officer.The Commissioner had filed a fresh appeal on 28.11.2000 against the same order as was impugned in the earlier appeal and has then filed an application for condonation of the delay of three years and ninety-seven days. In the application two grounds are made.The first was that the earlier defective appeal was "accepted" by the office of the Tribunal.The second ground is that the original was in time.2. We do not find either of the claims made as sufficient justification.The order of the larger bench of the Tribunal reproduced in 2000 (120) ELT 201 (CCE vs. Azo Dye Chem) rules that the Tribunal has no power to condone the ...

Dr. Pankaj Naram'S Herbal Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application asks for waiver of deposit of redemption fine of Rs. 7500/- and Rs. 12500 and penalty of Rs. 1000 on Dr. Pankaj Naram Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd. It also refers to penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed on Smitha P.Naram. 2. It appears that this is a combined appeal on behalf of Smitha P. Naram as well as the manufacturer. Separate appeals have to be filed by each person. This appeal, and the application, are treated as having been filed by the manufacturer.3. The Dy. Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 1000 on Pankaj N.Herbal Remedies P. Ltd., confiscated "Herbo" soap seized from this firm with an option to pay on fine of Rs. 7500/-. He has also confiscated another quantity of the soap seized from Raja Rajeshwari Polymers Pvt.Ltd. and permitted it to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 12,500/-. The applicant is only concerned with the soap seized from its premises. It is therefore only requires to deposit Rs. 7500 and penalty of Rs. 1000.4. The reason for the Dy. Commission...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhavnagar Vegetable Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In its order allowing the appeal filed by the appellant before it, and holding that it was entitled to refund of the excise duty paid by it, the Tribunal had exclusively relied upon the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides vs. UOI 1992(57)ELT201. That judgment has since been reversed by the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (116) ELT 401. The application by the Commissioner claims that there was therefore a mistake apparent on record in the Tribunal's order.2. Apart from the judgement of the High Court that the counsel for the appellant points out, the larger bench of the Tribunal in Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chem, Ltd. vs. CCE 2000 (122) ELT 282 has held that a decision of a court or a tribunal passed subsequent to the Tribunal's decision cannot form a basis for seeking correction of that decision on the ground of mistake....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hybrid Electronic Systems Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondent is absent and unrepresented.I have heard the departmental representative.In its orders, the Tribunal was of the view that notification 16/94 permitted credit to be taken on these documents holding that a gate pass issued before 31.3.94 and endorsed after that date could be valid for taking credit before 30.6.94.2. The objection appears to be that for notification 16/94 to be applied the gate pass should have been issued and endorsement made prior to 31.3.94 any other interpretation would render the notification negated.Entry 10 of the Table to the notification recognises an endorsed gate pass to be availed document for taking credit, provided that it had been issued before 1.4.94 and credit is taken on or before 30.6.94.Now, an endorsed gate pass is not a document which can be issued.It is the gate pass that is issued, and can be endorsed later.It the gate pass that is issued, and can be endorsed late. Therefore, the word "issued" described in the notification refers to ...

Pudumjee Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The export executive of the appellant requests decision on the written submission, which he hands over today. I have read the submission and heard the departmental representative.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of paper. This Finance Bill, 1988 introduced a special excise duty of 5% on paper, effective from the night of 28.2.88, the date on which the Bill was introduced. The appellant cleared during the period the period from 1.3.88 to 31.3.88 a quantity of paper, which it manufactured prior to the introduction of the budget without paying special excise duty. The department issued notice dated 4.11.88 demanding duty on these goods. The notice was confirmed by the Asst. Collector, who also imposed a penalty on the appellant. On appeal from his order, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Asst. Collector's order on the ground that it was only the Collector who was competent to issue and adjudicate the show cause notice. He directed the Asst. Collector "to put up the papers to the...

M/S. Balmer Lawrie Van Leer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this stay application came up on the last occasion, it was adjourned to today after advising the parties that since the matter appeared covered, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.2. Today after hearing both sides, the appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit.3. The appellant had exported several consignments of drum closures, manufactured by it order to fulfil the obligation required of it by advance licences which were issued to it permitting import of goods without payment of duty in terms of notification 203/92 and 204/ 92.The appellant had taken modvat credit of the duty paid of inputs used in the manufacture of the exported product.It is a condition in the former notification in the form of a letter that modvat credit could not be availed of in the manufacture of the exported goods.4. A large number of exporters had taken such credit on the representation, the Government came with a scheme by which this condition would not be applied it the cre...

M/S. Topack Industries (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1312Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Dy. Commissioner impugned before him, imposing under rule 173Q a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant and confiscating goods manufactured by it and permitting them to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 5 lakhs.3. The Dy. Commissioner found that the appellant had not entered in the register goods valued at Rs. 55 lakhs on which duty was Rs. 9,50,000.Counsel for the appellant does not deny the failure to enter the goods in the RGI register. He points out that in the absence of any intention to remove without payment of duty, it is the provisions of rule 226 that will apply and not rule 173Q. He also pleads for leniency on the ground that part of the goods to be supplied to one buyer were pending inspection by the buyer and the remaining goods, to be supplied to Bombay Dyeing had been packed in boxes only to...

M/S. Prerna Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard Shri Naresh Thackar, advocate, on the application for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of our order No.C-11/3156-3172/WZB/1999 dated 16.11.1999 later reported in 2000 (117) ELT 245. In this order the appeal filed by Prerna Textiles was dismissed upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs. 9,000/- on the present applicants as also duty of Rs. 8,92,524/- (part of which amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- was paid during the proceedings). The Tribunal's order was common for a number of appellants similarly placed. The Supreme Court upheld the order in the case of the present applicants (ACC vs. UOI (42) RLT). In this judgment the Supreme Court upheld the finding that drawing, designs etc. imported in pursuance of technical collaboration agreements were dutiable goods, that they merited classification under heading 4906 and upheld the finding that where the goods were leviable to duty under the tariff entry, the rate attracted was as prescribed under heading 98.03. Vi...

Akay Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Adjournment is requested on the ground that the concerned person of the applicant is not in a position to attend the hearing due to pre-occupation and unavoidable circumstances. This vague explanation is not enough for adjournment and I decline to adjourn. I have read the relevant paper and heard the departmental representative.2. Duty of Rs. 87,200 and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- are required to be deposited by the applicant. The Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the provision of 173H under which the applicants cleared the goods manufactured by it were not available for the reason that intimation in Form D-3 was not filed. His finding on the charge on the notice that the goods were not received back within a year, 173H clearance of the goods on payment of duty is ambiguous. He says that the assessee has produced corroborative evidence to establish that it had received the goods within a year. he also seems to emphasise that rejected goods were not made or reconditioned in a segregated...

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. M/S Veekay Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he had upheld the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and had dismissed the department's review application, the revenue filed an appeal and also an application for stay of operation of the impugned order. When the application was headed the Tribunal noticed that the Commissioner in making the order had referred to and relied upon an earlier judgment of his predecessor. The departmental representative was asked whether the cited judgment was accepted by the department or not. Sufficient time was given. Today Shri A.K. Jain submits that in spite of the queries made by his office, there was no information.2. In this situation we see no reason to accede to the accede to the request for stay of operation of the Commissioner's order. It is accordingly dismissed....