Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Adarsh Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides, the appeal was taken up for final disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 26,410.40 and penalty of Rs. 1000/-.2. The dispute is on the availability of certain articles in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The denial of credit on Fire Extinguishers on the ground that they were safety devices and did not participate in the production of goods, is not very keenly contested. Samot Powder and adhesives are used as consumables. The denial of credit in this regard is also not very keenly contested.Contest is, however, made of M.S. Rod, beam, channel and angles used as support for the furnace in which glass is melted. The denial was based on the strength of the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics ltd. vs. CCE [1996 (88) ELT 277 (T). The Tribunal held that such steel structures could not be taken to be component parts of accessories of the machineries. The prima-facie view held was that modvat credit under ...

M/S. Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen.Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT855Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are a Limited company registered as dealer under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Show cause notice dated 21.10.97 alleged that credit had been taken by them on original copies of invoices dating during the period March 1993 to May, 1996. The show cause notice alleged willful suppression etc. for imposing penalty under Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act and under Rule 173Q and Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules. The Asstt. commissioner imposed penalty under Rule 173Q and also imposed a separate penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules. The penalty under Rule 209 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) but the penalty under Rule 173Q was maintained. Hence, the appeal.2. Shri Ravindran, the ld.counsel for the appellant placed very strong reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. CCE, Calcutta [200(88) ECR 550(Tri). In the judgment in majority, it was held that where extended period was invoke...

ispat Industries Ltd., Om Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeals are taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. These five appeals by Ispat Industries Ltd., the importer and four of its employees, are against the order of the Commissioner confirming the additional duty of customs demanded on spares for the hot strip mill imported by it, and imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on it, and on its four employees.3. Ispat Industries manufactured hot briquetted iron and hot roll steel in its factory at Dolvi.The manufacturer engaged in supply of finished product not only in the domestic market but also export.It was therefore granted permission for a bonded warehouse in its factory.The duty in question has been demanded on the ground that the goods were removed from the bonded warehouse without paying the additional duty of customs that was payable on them, the basic duty of customs being exempted in terms of notification 111/95.4. The representative of the appellant does not deny th...

Mohammed Aijaz Ahmed Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs.2 lakhs imposed on the applicant for the reason that he was attempting to smuggle 510 tolas of gold valued at Rs.23.60 lakhs through the Sahar Airport.2. After considering the submission of the representative of the applicant that as a result of his arrest following the incident, he has lost his job in a bank in Saudi Arabia, and the departmental representative's argument that the applicant had enough money to buy a large quantity of gold and smuggled it, we order deposit of Rs.1 lakh toward penalty within a month from the receipt of this order. Thereupon we waive deposit of the remaining penalty....

Flex-o-packaging Babloo S. 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.3,67,042/- demanded from Flex-O-Packaging and penalties of Rs.50,000/- upon it and Rs.5000/- on Babloo Khanna, its partner.2. The applicant inter alia, is a dealer of aluminium foil. It is also engaged in the printing of such foil. It received aluminium foil from its manufacturer and it is stated to have sold the foil to various persons, without however physically delivering them. These persons thereupon placed orders on it for printing of the aluminium foil, claiming the benefit of notification 214/86. The applicant thereafter supplied the printed foil without payment of duty. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has demanded duty on the ground that in computing for the purposes of notification 1/93, the value of clearances of the applicant, the quantity for which the benefit of notification 214/86 was availed of is not to be excluded.3. The contentions of the representative of the applicants are these.There has...

Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Airport,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant imported three consignments of goods in respect of which it claimed, and was granted, the benefit of exemption from duty available in notification 203/92. Some time after clearance, the department issued notice alleging that the benefit had been wrongly granted, for the reason that one of the condition in the notification, the modvat credit should not have been taken and manufactured of the exported goods, had been contravened. In the reply to the notice, the appellant accepted that credit had been taken and claimed that it had been reversed and therefore it was covered by the amnesty scheme announced by the government. It however sought time to produce documents to establish this fact. The documents were in its factory not accessible to it on account of a strike by factory labour from March 1999. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice on his ...

Khemlo Sakharam Sawant Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)761a; (2001)2BOMLR875a

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This application takes exception to the order passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji dated May 5, 2001, rejecting the application for bail preferred by the applicant herein.3. Briefly stated, a complaint was received in the Crime Branch, Panaji from Shri Vinay Tendulkar alleging that on 27-4-2001 while he was in the midst of a meeting with the people from his constituency, the applicant/accused approached him for a private talk along with one Deepak Parab and told him that they were sent by Tai, i.e. Smt. Nirmala Sawant, President of Congress (T) of Goa State and seven MLAs of BJP who had shown inclination to join Congress (I) and further that they decided to offered him ministerial berth and Rs. 15 lakhs in cash to split from BJP and support Congress (I) to form Government. On the basis of this complaint, which was registered as Crime No. 3/2001, the concerned Station Officer, forwarded the said report to the Magistrate at around 18.3...

Amijal Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant absent and unrepresented despite issue of notice. There is no response to the notice issued to it asking for copy of the order-in-original which not enclosed to the appeal....

CaptaIn M.A. Noor Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT314Tri(Mum.)bai

2. A sea going vessel by name M.V. Free Trader came into the India territorial water on or about 23.1.1999 and reached Bhavnagar on or about 25.1.1999. It was anchored at a little distance away form the Bhavnagar prot as instructed by the port authorities. However, thereafter it sailed and anchored in the vicinity of Alang port, which is situated at about 12 to 13 miles away from Bhavnagar port. The Customs noticed the presence of the ship and instituted enquiries. The statements made by the master of the ship and his officers revealed that the vessel was carrying Iraqi oil to Dubai. It was seized by US navy and was detained at Abu Dhabi for almost one year. The cargo was unloaded there. The master could not contact the owner of the ship. The master and the crew were not paid their wages during the entire period.On 17.1.1999 the vessel was deported from Abu Dhabi port. The crew and the master then decided to sail to India to sell the ship to recover their dues. This is how the ship ha...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Anjani Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT688Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Today when the application for stay is posted for hearing it is felt that the appeal itself could be disposed of. I have taken up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides. In these two appeals the appellants are carrying on the business of manufacturing fabrics they have filed refund claims under deemed credit order. It is the case of the department that the refund claim has been filed beyond the period of six months under Rule 11B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the appeal before me in paragraph 4 thereof, the respondents pleads reads as under: 4. The provisions under section 11B with respect to the relevant date has been specified under 'explanation' of para 5 which entails the usage of relevant date' in specific cases. In the present case, the 'relevant date' clearly falls under the category (B) of the explanation under para 5 of the section 11B of CEA, 1944. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Porcelain Electricals Mfg. ...