Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Premier Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri S.N. Binani authorised representative of the applicants submits that the Commissioner having modified his own order, he would seek to withdraw this appeal. This appeal and the stay application are dismissed....

Shri B.S. Sood, Shri S.S. Sood and Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals arise out of the single order of the Collector of Customs Mumbai. These are therefore being dealt with in this common order.2. Shri S.S. Sood and his son Shri B.S. Sood, were directors in M/s.S.S. Sood and Sons Pvt. Ltd. They obtained an import licence under the Import Export Pass Book Scheme in the name of the Company. This licence was not transferable. However, certain persons approached the Soods for utilisation of the licence held by them. One Ashok Sharma was the intermediary. M/s. Sood and Company gave the power of attorney to one H.D. Thakkar who caused the licence to be passed on to one HD Gamatra who in turn passed on the licence to one Mahendra Bhandari. Mahendra Bhandari paid a sum of about Rs.2.5 lakhs to Ganatra as compensation.Only a part of this amount by given to the Soods and the bulk was pocketed by Ganatra. Mr. Bhandari imported a consignment of lining material in the name of SS Sood and Sons, the licence holders and filed a Bill of Entry in t...

M/S. Chunilal Sankalchand and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application the appeal was taken up for final disposal.2. The Commissioner passed the impugned order Ex-parte holding that the notices to the show cause notice had not filed any reply and had not appeared for hearing. In the order he confirmed demand of Rs.7,55,385/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.40,000/- upon them. The plea made by the appellants is that they had in fact filed a reply dt. 28.1.99 which had been received by the Custom House of the next day. In the reply, It was claimed that the notices were transfer licences holders, that there was no evidence to show that the conditions of the notification had been contravened. It was also claimed that the demand suffered on limitation. An order passed by the Commissioner in a different case was enclosed holding that in identical circumstances the demand was barred by limitation.3. The same claims were made before us. The following judgments were also cited 4. We observe that the Ld. Commission...

M/S. Maharashtra Medical Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A number of appeals on the same grounds had come for disposal before a two member Bench on a difference or opinion the appeals are at present before a third member for disposal. Let this case be posted for mention in July 2001. In the meanwhile revenue shall not take any steps to recover the duty and penalty....

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application no. 2116 is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 8.91 crores approx; (duty demanded in respect of the applicant's plant at Vaghodia near Vadodara); The application no. 2622 is for waiver of deposit of duty (demanded in respect of its plant at Usar) of Rs. 6.46 crores and a penalty of Rs 1.00 lakhs.3. Gas Authority of India Ltd, the applicant, manufactures liquefied petroleum gas (LPG for short) in its two plants. It receives, through a pipe line, natural gas mined by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, extracts from it, butane and propane (which are combined to form LPG) and sells the remaining product as fuel to various customers. This remaining product, lean gas, is fully exempt from duty by notification.The applicant had taken modvat credit of the duty paid on the molecular sieves used in each of its factories. In the impugned order, the Commissioners have held that since the lean gas which is exempted from duty, is manufactured by the applicant, a deposit equal t...

Acrysil (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a set of moulds. It claimed partial exemption of the duty payable on the goods in terms of notification 162/92. This notification exempts from duty capital goods imported by a personwho has undertaken to fulfil the export obligation to the extent specified in the Table to the notification. One of the conditions of the notification is that the importer shall, at the time of clearance, produce to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, a certificate from the licensing authority for having executed a bond under paragraph 45 of the Export and Import Policy. Paragraph 45 of this policy requires the importer to execute a bond with the licensing authority "for the value and period as mentioned in the licence." 2. The importer produced the bond that it had executed before the licensing authority in terms of this paragraph. The Assistant Commissioner found that the bond that was executed fell short of the value of the licence (and the value of the capital goods importe...

M/S. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals involve the same ground and are, therefore, being disposed of together vide this order after hearing Shri Jain, Departmental Representative for the Respondent. The appellants were not present but in their written submission they had claimed that the additional burden cast upon them had been paid by them although under protest.2. The appellants manufactured certain goods for captive consumption.For computing the notional profit, they had taken the figure of 3.11% for the year 1993-94 and the figure of 2.39% for the year 1992-93. For the year 1992-93 this was raised to 22.31% and for the succeeding year the gross profit margin was raised to 22.35%. Assessments were finalised in these terms. In both the cases, the appellant's appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeals.3. The issue of appropriate quantum of profit to be added was finally decided by the Tribunal in their Larger Bench judgement in the case of Raymonds Ltd. [2001 (12...

M/S. Persian Carpet and Rugs Vs. Commissioner of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application, we find that the appeal itse1lf could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 11,43,920/- confirmed as duty and Rs. 58,000/- imposed as penalty. In the impugned order, the duty was confirmed and the penalty was levied on the conviction that the appellants had (sic) the provisions of Notfn.No.203/92 Cus in as much as in the manufacture of export products input stage credit had been availed of. In making the order, the Commissioner observed that no reply was filed to the show cause notice nor did the importers appear before him to state their case.2. Shri Ravindra Jain, the ld. Consultant for the appellants states that the importers on receipt of the show cause notice had requested for a period to file the reply to the show cause notice and to appear before the Commissioner. The intimation as to the hearing was received by the importers on the date of hearing and they had asked for an adjournm...

Dee Industries and Ashok D. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1101Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications are for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 22.2.2000 dismissing two appeals on the ground that compliance with the stay order passed on 16.12.99 requiring deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs within two months from the receipt of this order had not been complied with.2. The contentions of the common representatives of the applicant are these. The Tribunal's stay order was not delivered to one of the two addresses given in the appeal for service in the notice. No doubt a copy of the order was received at the office of Mr. S.J. Vyas, Advocate of the applicant. However, a copy of the order was not sent to the applicant nor was its receipt communicated to them by their advocate or its office. The applicants only came to know of the Tribunal's order when they received the order in May 2000 dismissing the appeal for default. On account of their financial difficulty, each of them made the deposit in instalments, the deposit being completed in December 2000.3. It is not possibl...

Shri Angelito Mercado and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants were crew members of a ship. The Customs seized 600 gold bars from the vessel. The two present applicants have given confessional statements. Subsequently, the statements were retracted.The Commissioner adjudicated the case. In spite of retraction, the initial statements of the applicants were taken as valid evidence. He confiscated the gold and imposed penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on each of the applicants. They have filed appeals and also the present applications for waiver of predeposit of the penalties.2. We have heard Shri Malang, advocate for the applicants and Shri George for the Revenue.3. The Counsel states that for the last 20 months his clients are in custody. They have not made any application for bail because they could not be able to provide either cash security or surety. The have no movable or immovable property and his client shave no means of support.Shri Malang mentions that he has been briefed by me consulate and not be the individual applicants.4. Solel...