Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S Nilesh Trading Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty 12,53,627/- and penalty of Rs.63,000/-.2. The Commissioner has confirmed the duty and has impose penalty on the observation that the appellants contravened the provisions of Notfn.No.203/93 Cus in as much as in the export modvat credit has been availed of.3. Shri J.C.Patel, advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the show cause notice was not received by his clients.The adjudication order does not give any details as to the number of Bills of Entry and the dates thereof, of the goods imported and the details of the export goods manufactured on which the credit was availed of.In the absence of the details, he submits that he can not make any submission. He, however, submits that the burden of proof to is not be discharged by the transferee of the licence and therefor his clients is not responsible for the various allegations made on them.In support of his submi...

M/S. Sayaji Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A show case notice was issued in this case on 17.11.1972 for contravention of various Rules of the Central Excise Rules issued under the provision of the Central Excise Act.It has been held by the Delhi High Court in two decisions in the following cases viz. M/s. Chloride India ltd. vs.Customs, Exercise C.W.P 2576/85 and M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd.vs Union of India and Others-C.P.W.No.237 of 1985 holding that a person has vested right of appeal from the dated the show cause notice is issued and that provisions of Sec. 35F of the Central Act which were introduced on 11.10.82 will not be applicable.The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has held so in the appellant's own case in E/stay/338/99-D in appeal No.E/4264/93-D (Stay order No.S/32/99-D dtd.5.5.99). Following the same, we grant unconditional stay and waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts demanded under the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal....

Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT878Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. Having considered the submissions made in the appeal, we take up the appeal itself for disposal after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that coal cinder that arises in the appellant's factory is a manufactured product and liable to duty. He had said that Board's circular No. 386/19/-CX.3 dated 7.4.1998 has held that coal ash cinder is a commodity classifiable under 2621.00, and consequent upon amendment to notification 76/86 on 23.7.1996, withdrawing the exemption earlier granted, the cinder has become leviable to duty.3. In its judgement in Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited & Another Vs. Union of India 2000 (39) RLT 902 the Gujarat High Court has held that this circular of the Board and the trade notice are "arbitrary, illegal and not warranted by the provisions of the said Excise Act and the Exice Tariff Act." It has held that cinder would not be excisable goods within the...

Janab Nadeem Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)LC55Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad ordering confiscation of the 109 mobile telephones and some other goods which the appellant sought to smuggle through the customs in Ahmedabad, valuing Rs. 10,52,800/-, ordering their confiscation under Clause (d) and (1) of Section 111 of the Act and imposing penalty of Rs. 6.5 lakhs on the appellant. The Commissioner finds that the appellant was walking from the green channel with these phones without evidence of payment of duty when he was intercepted. He has not accepted the invoice purportedly issued by Ilford Cellular, London for their value.2. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to show that the appellant came into the green channel. The panchanama clearly records that appellant was in the green channel when he was intercepted. The correctness of this document has not been assailed. In reply to a question by us, the counsel for the appellant accepts that the...

M/S. Max International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC125

1. The appellants in this case filed a Shipping Bill under the claim of DEPB declaring the export product as '4-(4-Chlorophenyl)-4-Hydroxypiperdine. Samples were drawn and tested by several authorities during the course of investigation. The Asst.Drugs Controller stated that "the chemical tested was not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940". The DYCC, New Customs House stated that "the chemical was found to be inorganic silicates in the form of powder each was other than '4-(4-Chlorophenyl-4-Hydroxypiperdine." The test report of a private company showed that the product was the combination of the chemical plus inorganic silicates slightly over 80%. The 4th agency also a private laboratory was not able to give any opinion. The value declared was about Rs. 18 lakhs. The exporters claimed that the consignment was purchased from a trader for Rs. 16.25 lakhs. It was claimed that the payment was made in cash. The cash withdrawals from the bank were shown as ...

Rishiroop Rubber Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 6.60 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The applicant, a 100% export oriented unit, imported chemicals and synthetic rubber which are its raw materials, without payment of duty in terms of notification 18/81. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant removed without payment of duty as provided in the notification the steel drums in which such raw material was packed.3. Among the various contentions that the advocate for the applicant raised two are prima facie attractive at this stage. The first is that the unit being a Custom House bonded warehouse, issues and removal of the goods could not take place without the physical presence of the customs officer posted therein. The warehouse is under a double lock system, one lock being perated by the officer and the other by the manufacturer. The second is that the value taken of Rs. 300/- per drum is excessive. The drums b...

M/S. Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These matters relate to the alleged mis-use of the Not.No.64/88. The Tribunal has had occasions to hear similar cases. The 2 Member present Bench had differed on some aspects and the reference made to the 3rd Member is still pending. Pending final disposal of the matter, the Revenue is directed not to resort to co-ersive measures to recover the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed in these cases....

M/S. Visnagar Taluka Audyogic Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT754Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the stay application was called out, we find an application for adjournment. On reading the issues involved, it appeared that the main issue could be taken up for disposal. This was done on granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 6,56,974.89 and penalty of Rs. 35,000/- 2. The appellants imported certain goods without payment of duty in terms in Notfn.No.203/92-Cus dated 19.5.92. Show cause notice was issued seeking to recover the duty leviable and seeking to impose penalty on the ground that in the manufacture of export goods, input stage credit had been taken and utilised. The Commissioner in his order mentioned that no reply was filed by the importers and also that the importers did not appear for personal hearing. The orders confirming the duty and imposing the penalty were, therefore, passed ex-parte.3. In the appeal memorandum, it is claimed that the reply was filed to the show cause notice. The copy of the reply dated 9.5.2000 is enclosed. A specific stat...

Gujarat Small Scale Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. On the last occasion the matter was adjourned for the departmental representative to verify the claim of financial hardship made by the applicant. He says that it has been reported to him by the Commissioner that August, 1999 onwards the company has ceased its business activities except recovery. On it being pointed out to the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was busy in recovering amount due to it, it is only fair that it should deposit the amount recoverable from it, he offer to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within a month from today. Having regard to the facts before us we accept this offer and accordingly modify our earlier stay order....

M/S. Crc Cargo Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC401

1. The applicants imported certain transportation machinery for use in the construction of a Refinery Project. The contract was for hire. The value declared for the purpose of payment of duty was found to be low.Inquiries were conducted. The price declared was raised from Rs. 1,09,88,166/- to Rs. 7,27,78,251/-. Duty was charged and paid. The equipment was later re-exported and draw back at the rate of 85% was paid to the importers. Proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the goods under Sec.111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act and also for imposition of penalty. The Commissioner dropped the charges under Sec.111(d) but held them as established under Sec.111(m). He did no specify any fine in lieu of confiscation but imposed a penalty of Rs. 62,60,000/- on the importers. This was calculated by taking into account the benefit that would have accrued to the importers if the initial price declared has been accepted. The appeal is against the imposition of the penalty and the applica...