Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Subhash Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty from the appellant and imposing penalty upon it on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 which it wrongly been availed of in respect of goods imported by it.2. The show cause notice dated 29th January, 1999 was issued to the appellant in respect of the goods imported in February and March, 1994 and invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act by alleging both suppression of facts as well as their misdeclaration. It is says "deliberate suppression regarding non-availment of credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been done with the intention of availing undue duty benefits". The notice also alleges "that the importer made a wrongful declaration on the export documents to the effect that no inputs stage credit (modvat) had been availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of export goods, while infact such benefit was availed in r...

Ashok Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of failure to comply with its order for deposit within two months of Rs.45,000. It dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that the deposit made in 1999 would not amount to compliance with the stay order. The present application again seeks restoration of the appeal.2. The only ground in the application is that the Tribunal has power to restore the appeal. The question is not whether the Tribunal has power to restore the appeal, but the manner in which that power should exercised. There was no application, subsequent to the stay order, for modification or extension of time. It is clear that the appellant chose to deposit the amount when it find convenient to do so, 11 years after the stay order. There is not the slightest attempt to explain the delay of more than a decade. To permit restoration in such a case would in effect amount to an admission that the order of the Tribunal has no meaning or sanctity; can be compli...

Reliable Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT439Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of parties, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant imported, 522 sewing machines in July and August, 1999, claimed and was granted their clearance without payment of duty in terms of notification 29/97. The notification exempts from duty goods covered by import licence issued under the Export Promotion (Capital Goods) Scheme subject to condition that the obligation to the extent specified by the licensing authority to export goods manufactured by using these capital goods is complied within the specified period. Within the short period of the importation of these goods - the exact date is not known - the appellant sold 224 machines.The appellant neither intimated the fact of sale of these goods to the licensing authority or the customs department, nor seek permission for their sale. He did not endeavour to pay the duty payable on them. ON becoming aware of the sale, the Customs department initiated action under law. The appellant's p...

Godrej and Boyee Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs holding that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that one of the conditions in the notification, that modvat credit should not have been availed of by the manufacture of the exported goods, had not been complied with. The Commissioner passed an ex-parte order finding that no reply to the notice was filed and evidence to rebut the allegation in the notice was not furnished.2. Counsel for the appellant says that reply to notice was sent, and adjournment requested of the hearings fixed on two days in January and February, 2000 on the ground that the General Manager was out of station. He says, however, that the contention that was made in the reply that modvat credit was not availed of is incorrect and was made because of inadvertence. The actual fact is that although credit was availed of it was reversed in July, 1995, before the period of amnesty sch...

Purshotam Chatrabhuj Thacker Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT696Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence issued to the appellant under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Amish Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs (appeal C/420/2000-Mum) that, in computing the quantum of business of a custom house agent, total of the business conducted in all customs stations has to be taken into account, will apply to the facts of this case.3. The departmental representative strongly contends that this order requires reconsideration. He says that it is clear form the Regulations that the same person is separately licensed at each customs station, and each of these licences is to be treated on an individual and separate footing. Thus, for example, suspension of licence at one customs station for any reason will on automatically result in suspension of licences issued elsewhere. The bond required to b...

C.M.C. (India) and Kaushik Patel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2.65 lakhs and penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs on the manufacturer and Rise. 2 lakhs under Rule 209A on Kaushik Patel, its director.3. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of ultramarine blue. It sought for and obtained permission under Rule 56B to remove the semi finished products to premises outside its factor for drying and packing and return thereafter to the factory for clearance on payment of duty.The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the finding of the Dy. Commissioner, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the difference between the semi finished goods and those returned of about 4% could not be satisfactorily explained and was admitted by the proprietor in his statement to have been clandestinely removed.4. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the records of some another person engaged in repacking of these materials shows that a loss of 7% occurs in the process, and hence, and ...

State of Goa Vs. Placido Braganza

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR395; 2002(1)MhLj370

1. All these applications involve common question and are, therefore, being disposed of together by consent of the parties.2. The question that arises in the present applications is whether the Court can pass any order which would have the effect of modifying/substituting/altering the consent decree unless parties agree for the same. The consequential question is whether in the present case the reliefprayed for by the applicants for refund of the principal amount with interest can be granted.3. Briefly stated the applicants commenced acquisition proceedings in respect of lands owned by the respondents herein. The said acquisition proceedings culminated in the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer against which reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the District Court enhanced the compensation amount in favour of the respondents. Against the said awards, the applicants herein filed First Appeals against the respective respondents. During ...

Shri Manishkumar Bagdawala and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC80

1. These applications relate to three appeals arising out of the common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I. These are therefore being disposed of vide this common order. We have heard Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue.2. M/s. Shri Vishnu Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. are the Central Excise assessees. Shri Dharmendra Bakhaswala is the director of the assessee unit. Shri Manishkumar Bagdawala is the assistant dyeing master. When the excise officers visited the mills, they noticed certain processed fabrics which were in excess of the recorded stock.These were seized. The search of the premises yielded certain kachha delivery challans as also four pocket diaries. These were seized from behind the seat of Bagdawala. The panchnama records that before the panchas Bagdawala admitted recovery of the note books. He made the statement that the note books indicate the clearances of processed fabrics without payment of duty....

Shri Harshad P. Doshi and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals have common facts and arise out of the same order now impugned before the Tribunal. These appeals are, therefore, being disposed of vide this common order.2. From private warehouse, the officers of the DRI seized ball bearings and spark plugs. The warehouse keeper had not kept any records but had maintained some entries in the private note books. He gave names of certain persons as having deposited the goods. They were summoned. One Kiritbhai of M/s M.P. International produced some Bs/E showing clearance of ball bearings and spark plugs. These goods were released.One Bhupatbhai M. Shah whose name was given by the Manager of the warehouse as the depositor of 222 cartons of ball bearings denied ownership of the same but his brother Bharat M. Shah claimed ownership The book showed the figure of 222 cartons but DRI found only 219 cartons. Shri Bharat M. Shah in his later deposition corrected himself and adopted the figure as 222 cartons. He claimed that he had purchas...

M/S Voltas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT100Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III made in Order-in-Original No 77/95 dated 29.11.1995 whereunder he has confirmed the duty of Rs 10,11,750/- and imposed a penalty of Rs 1.00 lakh for violation of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture of air conditioner and compressors for captively using the same in the air conditioners. They are also manufacturing other engineering goods.3. The appellant has two divisions, namely cooling appliances business division manufactures and clears room air conditioners and split air conditioners, while air conditioning business division manufactures and clears packaged air conditioners required for use in central air conditioning plants. Its factory is situated at Thane. Whenever the appellant manufactures compressors and utilises the same in the manufacture of air conditioners, the said compressors did not suffer pa...