Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Cc, (import) Mumbai Vs. Vxl India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We allow the application filed by the department. In the 4th line of last page of the order, the words and figures "Section 25" are to be replaced by the words and figures "Section 125"....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Venkatesh Petrochemicals P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC156Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the distillation to which Venkatesh Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal subjects benzene raffinate amounts to manufacture and hence the product of the distillation processes liable to duty. Adjudicating on the notice issued to the manufacture, the Asst. Collector said that the product which was subjected to distillation benzene raffinate also known as C-6 raffiante was different from the product of the distillation which is naphtha reformat, which the manufacturer refer to as "solvent NR". In the light of this and the fact that distillation should be considered a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product, and hence covered by the definition of "manufacture" in section 2F of the Act, he held the process to be manufacture and the product liable to duty. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted the claim that the purpose of the distillations was to remove impu...

Prabhakar L Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal in which the application has been filed in against the order of the Commissioner passed in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to him.3. The questions for consideration in this appeal are whether the appellant could import, without payment of duty in terms of notification 204/92, fabric, which did not correspond in terms of denier with the specifications in the DEEC, and whether the fabric was covered by the description in the import licence. The Commissioner has held against the appellant on both counts.4. On considering the stay application in the appeal that the applicant first filed, the Tribunal, finding that the issues were arguable, granted waiver of deposit of penalty, noting that there was no application for waiver of deposit of duty. Since there is no change in the circumstances, it would be equitable for us to come to the same prima facie conclusion. In addition, the fact that the department has accepted the same import licence for clea...

M/S. Rajnarayan Jwalaprasad and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals have been filed by the license (appellant in Appeal No.C/859/2000) and transferees of the licence appellants in Appeal NO.C/867/2000 in respect of goods imported some time in June 1996. The goods were warehoused initially by M/s. Aar Vee Plastics. In July 1996 the appellant in Appeal No.C/867/2000 entered into the said High Sea Sale contract and was not acted upon in September 1996. The said appellant cleared the goods by ex-bonding bill of entry was filed by the appellant M/s. Aar Vee Plastics and it was in fact three bills of entry were filed. Originally in the bills of entry value was shown as R.29,77,027/- similar to one shown at the time of ex-bonding the same value was mentioned. The show cause notice was issued in this case charging the appellants before us that the correct value should be mentioned which should be on the basis of the High Sea Sales referred to above. It is the case of the department that the appellant in Appeal No. C/859/2000 Bom has fraudulen...

Emmes Metal P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application No. 68/200-Bom has been filed for modification of the stay order passed by the Tribunal on 20.11.2000 certified on 9.1.2001.Shri R. Nambirajan Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant's states that he requires two months time for payment of the full amount in installments. After hearing the departmental representative who doesn't have any objection, we therefore direct the assessee appellant to pay the full amount of Rs. 37,48,077.39 within two months from the receipt of this order.2. Compliance to be reported on 11.9.2001. The appellants have filed Application No. E/Misc. Ors.-217/2001-Bom for raising the additional grounds, the same may be posted along with the appeal when it will be considered....

M/S. Asea Brown Boveri Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Today stay application was posted for hearing. Since the appeal lie in a narrow compass, we have taken up the appeal for disposal after waiving redeposit.2. Appellant was issued with licence under Paragraph 56 of the EXIM Policy AM 92-97 with export obligation condition it is mentioned as Special Import Licence quantity base. They had imported goods Cold Rolled Steel Sheets and they claimed exemption under Notification No.260/92. In this case a show cause notice dt. 31.12.98 has been issued that the notice had imported under advance licence and had availed duty free clearance under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. In spite of this the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai, who imposed a penalty of Rs.95,000/-. We have heard both sides.We find that the licence as stated above has been issued not under Paragraph 49 of the EXIM Policy but under paragraph 56 of the EXIM Policy. The relevant Notification under which benefit was claimed his Notificatio...

Nirav Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT838Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for duty issued to the appellant of Rs. 18 lakhs, imposition of penalty of the same amount under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), and demanding interest. There is no ground in the appeal questioning the liability to duty or to interest. The counsel for the appellant confirmed that the appeal was limited to imposition of penalty.3. The appellant is a textile processor its liability to pay duty had been determined under the provisions of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The penalty has been imposed on the ground that the appellant did not pay, in August, September and October 1999, the duty which it was required to pay.5. Counsel for the appellant does not deny that the duty in question was not paid. He however contents that since the determination of the duty payable was provisional, penalty cannot be imposed for that failure. He relies upon the decision of this Tr...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Lohia Starlinger Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondent absent and unrepresented. It has requested a decision on merits. We have heard the departmental representative.2. The application is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, after hearing the departmental representative on the application, the bench proposed to take up the appeal itself and dispose it of for reasons that would become apparent.3. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the exemption contained in notification 155/58 of the goods imported by Lohia Starlinger Ltd., the respondent to this appeal. The claim was rejected in the first instance by the Asst. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter came up before the Tribunal on appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Asst. Commissioner had not furnished any reason for not accepting the claim of the importer. It therefore remanded the matter to him for considering the plea of importer that by application of note 2 to Chapter XVI of the Tariff...

Santosh Travels Vellas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1410Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The two applicants before me are engaged in recruitment of manpower.Each of them was required to pay service tax on the activity of manpower recruitment. By the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed penalty imposed on them and interest demanded from each of the appellants before me by the Deputy Commissioner (Service Tax), Central Excise, Mumbai. The Deputy Commissioner imposed penalties and demanded interest on the ground that the appellants did not pay service tax payable by them in respect of the manpower recruitment in which they were engaged upon.2. The tax in question by each of the appellants and there is no claim in the appeal with regard to the interest. These appeals are limited to imposition of penalty. Counsel contends that there is no reasonable cause for imposition of penalty. Upon the introduction of service tax on the activity of appellants, they, through their association and various persons having position in Central Government rep...

Rita Premchand and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR461; 2001(4)BomCR826; (2001)4BOMLR627; 2001(4)MhLj671

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The First Petitioner claims to be the owner of two plots of land at Manori bearing Survey No. 267 and 268. The lands are stated to admeasure approximately 18 acres and 6 gunthas and are separated by a piece of land bearing Survey-No. 260. The claim of the Petitioners is that these lands were the ancestral lands of the First Petitioner. The claim is that, under a Deedof Conveyance dated 25th February, 1899, the lands came to be purchased by Mr. Premchand Roychand from Mirjeebhai Manekjee Vasanwala. According to the Petitioners, these lands were thereafter bequeathed by Premchand Roychand to his son Kikabhai Premchand, from whom in turn the lands devolved upon his brother Maneklal. Maneklal is stated to have bequeathed these properties to his wife Tara Premchand. The First Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Tara Premchand, while the Second Petitioner is the daughter of the First Petitioner. In support of the plea of being lawful owners of the lands bearing Survey...