Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs, (imp.) Vs. M/S. Orkay Silk Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Collector of Customs, Mumbai vide order dated 5/10/88, now impugned before us in this appeal for Revenue, had imposed penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs on M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Ltd. He had also imposed a penalty on Shri Kapal R.Mehra, Managing Director of the said unit of Rs. 2 lakhs. The appeal from Revenue is directed against this order in so far as it relates to M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Ltd. The contention made is that the quantum of penalty imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence.2. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it came to notice that M/s. Orkay Silk Mills had been wound up in 1990. The present proceedings, therefore, do not survive in terms of Rule 22 of the CEGAT(Procedure)Rules, 1982. This appeal, therefore, abates and is dismissed....

Shri Mohammed Rahim Haju Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. One Ebrahim Ismail Bhamjee was apprehended while attempting to smuggle gold totally valued at Rs.12,67,586/-. He deposed that he was to hand over the gold to Mohammed Rahim Haju, father of Jamalludin who had asked Ebriahim Ismail Bhamjee to smuggle the gold.Mohammed R.Hju in his statement accepted that he was aware of the fact of smuggling of the gold and admitted to the part to be played by himself and his sone Namalludin.Before the Commissioner grievance was made that documents relied upon were not supplied.The Commissioner directed supply of document to be made.The present appellant Mohd.Rahim Haju did not take advantage of this direction nor did he appear for hearing when later fixed. The Commissioner, therefore, passed ex-parte orders confiscating the gold and imposing penalties on the carrier and the associates.Penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed on the present applicant. This application is filed by the present applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty and stay of r...

Shri Gajanan Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 4,19,074.08 was called out, the applicant/appellant was not present in spite of notice. On hearing the ld. departmental representative and on going through the documents we find that the issue could be decided at this stage. We proceeded to do so on granting waiver of pre-deposit of the confirmed duty.2. The appellant is the manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The molasses were sold at the price of Rs. 625/- per M.T. Show cause notice was issued alleging that in terms of the finding of Chief Sugar Technologists of V.D.S.Institute, the cost of manufacture of molasses without adding any overhead is Rs. 852/- PMT and it would be Rs. 1,000/- P.M.T. when all the costs are added. Taking this as a normal value, the differential duty was computed and the demand was made. The duty was confirmed by the Asst.Commissioner. The assessee then filed an appeal. The Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that there was no r...

Rajendra Manjenath Chendekar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the applicant under section 112 of the Act.3. Penalty has been imposed on the ground that the applicant, an employee of the Foreign Post Office, removed, while they were in transit from the Airport Sorting Office, to the Foreign Post Office, post parcels containing imported watch movements. We do not prima facie find a case for the applicant on merits. It is however contended that the applicant has no immovable property. He has also been suspended from service and has no other source of income. accordingly we direct the deposit of Rs.10,000/- within one month from the receipt of this order upon which we waive deposit of remaining amount of penalty....

Kishore Narayan Bambale Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal. While imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under section 112 of the Act on the appellant, the Commissioner has recorded that he was not present on 28.3.2000 when the hearing was fixed.2. it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that he received the notice of hearing only on 5.4.2001 in support of which he produce and envelope bearing the stamp of the post office. The envelope is claimed to have been sent by the Assistant Commissioner Rummaging and bears on it a number relating to adjudication. We are therefore satisfied that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the appellant.3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.The Commissioner is to adjudicate upon the notice issued to the appellant, after giving an opportunity of hearing....

M/S. Beekay Textile Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants were not present in spite of notice. The record shows that they have continuously failed to appear in spite of notices. This appeal is, therefore, being disposed of on perusal of the records and after hearing the departmental representative.2. The appellants undertook processing of grey man made fabrics supplied by traders. Duty was paid on the cost construction formula based on the data given by the traders in their declaration. On investigation the concerned officers found that the traders had sold the processed fabrics at a price higher than at which it was cleared from the factory of the present appellants. It was also determined that on the cost construction method the value of the grey fabrics should have been at a much higher rate than at which it was quoted by the traders. Show cause notices were issued to the processors and the traders. After hearing the noticees, the Collector passed the impugned order confirming differential duty amounting to Rs. 9,41,782....

Commissioner of Customs (input) Vs. M/S. Orkay Silk Mills, Shri Kapal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT698Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These six appeals relate to and arise out of the single order passed by the Collector of Customs, Mumbai. These are, therefore, disposed of vide this common roder.2. M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called Orkay) imported Polyester Chips declaring them to be of Yugoslavian orign and claiming concessional rate of duty. The goods were allowed provisional clearance at the concessional rate of duty. Subsequent investigation showed that the goods were of Italian origin and were in fact loaded at a Port in Italy. Show cause notice dated 24.10.86 was, therefore, issued seeking recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,06,53,744/- and seeking imposition of penalities upon M/s. Orkey Silk Mills Ltd., their Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors as well as on M/s.Shipping Corporation of India and M/s. H.Saleix & Co. M/s. H.Saleix & Co. was the indenting agent and the Shipping Corporation of India was the carrier of the goods. Allegations were also made that on ...

M/S. Garware Polyster Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants received polyester filament yarn on payment of duty as leviable on goods falling under Heading 3920 of the Central Excise Tariff. The process undertaken by them as was appended to the classification list filed on 12.10.94 was as follows:- "Duty paid Plain Polyester Film/Lacquered Polyester Film of different thicknesses will be used as inputs in Roll form. It will be cut into required sizes and equal numbers of pieces will be packed in a carton/box and sold in the market as article ready to use as transparency film mainly used in overhead projectors." 2. The classification claimed for such film in this classification list was under sub-heading 3926.90. This classification was claimed by them in the subsequent classification list/declaration filed by them time to time and was duly accepted by the jurisdictional officers.3. Show cause notice dated 2.5.2000 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat.II charged that the subject goods were more prope...

Shir Anil Patel, M/S. Auxifarban Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals pertain to and arise out of the single order passed by the Collector of Customs, Sahar Airport, Mumbai. These are, therefore, taken up together for disposal. The appellants are not represented but have filed written submissions. The claim made is that the show cause notice invoking the extended period has been issued by the Asstt. Director, D.R.I, and hence the demand made thereunder cannot sustain. In support of this claim, the Trade Notice issued by the Raipur Collectorate bearing No.1/92 dated 17.6.92 has been cited.2. We have seen the subject show cause notice where the provisions of Sec.28(1) of the Customs Act 1962 have been invoked. The show cause notice is dated 29.3.93 whereas the imports were made in January, 1991.3. We find that in identical circumstances, the Tribunal in their judgement in the case of Bakeman's Home Products Pvt. Ltd. vs CC, Mumbai [1997(95)ELT 278(Tri) had held that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction. The facts being ident...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. M/S. N.C. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The contest made in this appeal from the Revenue is of the benefit given to the scrap arising out of the manufacture of steel containers from sheets, plates etc, in terms of sr.no.30(ii) of Notfn.171/88CE. In holding for the assessee, the Commissioner relied upon his earlier order which was not challenged by the department.2. We find that the same issue stands covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Universal Containers vs. CCE [2000 (120) E.L.T.538(Tri-LB). The Tribunal in this judgement observed that the waste was the result of process of cutting, punching etc. of sheets, coils etc. and not from the goods manufactured as a result of these operations. On this observation, the Tribunal extended the benefit of the said entry. On this observation, the Tribunal extended the benefit of the said entry. The facts being identical in the present case, the ratio of this judgement squarely applies. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. The appeal from the Revenue...