Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Commr. of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1110Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents manufactured 33 KV and 23 KV switchboards. The classification lists described the goods as follows: These goods were supplied by them against CT3 certificate describing the goods as "6.6 KV switchboard and 33 KV switchboard". Two show cause notices were issued; one was for recovery of duty on certain spares etc. not covered under CT3 certificate. The second show cause notice was on the ground that in CT3 certificate there is no mention of "indoor panel with circuit breaker" although this description occurred win the classification list. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed both he demands observing that the correct CT3s had not been produced. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld a part of the demand holding that commissioning spares and earthing truck had been removed without producing CT3 certificate and set aside the other part of the demand holding that circuit breakers which were later supplied were actually covered under CT3 certificates.2. On his vacating the lower o...

M/S Ge Lighting (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, we find that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. We do so on granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 31,43,027/- confirmed as duty and penalty of equivalent amount.2. The Commissioner confirmed this duty in the belief that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus in as much as input stage credit had been availed in the manufacture of export goods. In the order, it has ben mentioned that the present appellant had not filed replies to the show cause notices nor had they appeared when summoned to do so.This lead the ld. Commissioner to pass the ex-parte order.3. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the appellant had in fact filed due replies. It was claimed that the in admissible credit taken was reversed during the amnesty period and certificate to that effect had also been supplied.4. We have seen the replies to the show cause notices placed on record.It appears that there was an err...

M/S Ashok Handloom House, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter came up for hearing today, it has been represented before us by Shri Thakkar, counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant has availed the benefit of KVVS 1998. The appellant has filed certificate issued under Form 3 (Rule 5a). Hence, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn.2. Today along with the above appeals filed by co-notices have also been posted. In view of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in O.P.No.16334 of 1999 in the case of Sri. Tom.K.Thomas vs. Union of India we dismiss the appeals of Shri D.V.Dohrani and shri Ashok Aorao as infructuous....

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC646

1. Steel Authority of India Limited, the appellant before us, imported a consignment of monoblock stoppers in February, 1993. It claimed and was granted in respect of this consignment the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 203/92. Notice dated 3.9.1997 was issued to it proposing to recover the duty foregone by extending the exemption under that notification. The notice alleged that the benefit of exemption was not available to the goods for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of products, consequent upon export of which an advance licence, carrying with it the right to claim the benefit of the exemption, was issued. The importer's stand in the reply to the notice was that it had availed of the amnesty scheme promulgated by the Government of India The Commissioner did not accept this stand; he found that the amnesty scheme was not available to the importer for the reason that a small part of the interest, Rs. 27.30 lakhs, payable on the ...

Madan Enterprises, Chennai Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT763Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of nylon tricot flocking fabrics and claimed the benefit of exemption contained in entry 108(1) of the table to notification 23/98. In the course of investigations by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, a statement was recorded of the proprietor of the importing firm in which he admitted that he had imported the goods for sale to garment manufacturers, and did not ever intend to the importer proposing denial of the benefit of the notification and proposing confiscation and penalty. Adjudicating upon this notice, the Commissioner, in the order impugned before us, has denied the benefit of the notification, confiscated the goods imported and imposed penalty on the appellant.Hence this appeal.3. There are no conditions applicable to the clause (1) of the notification. Condition 14 of the notification which applies to goods in clause (2) of the entry stipulates (except in the case of goods in Item (9) of List 3(B)) that the impo...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Rajesh Totla and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT156Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application from the Commissioner seeks clarification as to the scope of the Tribunal's order. "3. If once the Collector has passed an order in the file and signed it, that order becomes an order in law. The department, under section 129D of the Act, can appeal the order even if it is not communicated. The Bombay High Court, in its judgement in Cosmic Radio Vs. Union of India 1983 (12) ELT 84 has said mere non-communication of an adjudication order does not render it having no force in law, communication being merely an administrative act. That being the case, the second order passed by the Collector is non est, and has no force in law.3. The application now seeks clarification as to what is meant by the scope of the term "that order" in paragraph 4. It appears to us obvious and self evident the order referred to in paragraph 4 can be nothing other the second order passed by the Collector. That is the order that is referred to in the previous sentence of the Tribunal's order. ...

Flowfast Engineers (India) and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The delay of four days in filing the appeal of Ashok Bhatia is condoned.2. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 10.05 lakhs approx. by Flowfast Engineers (India), penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on it and of Rs. 1 lakh each on Manohar Bhatia, Hareshlal Bhatia, its directors, penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Degmak Engineering Corporation, and Rs. 1 lakh on Ashok Bhatia, partner of Degmak Engineering Corporation.3. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the goods imported by Flowfast Engineers, later supplied to Degmak Engineering Corporation, who in turn supplied them to other buyers, had been undervalued. The goods were imported and cleared at the Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai under a bill of entry filed on 29th December, 1994. The show cause notice has been issued by the officers of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), who has passed the order impugned in these appeals.4. The common counsel for all the applicants, except on...

Shri Ritesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No. C.II/1061-62/WZB/2001 dated 23.4.01, the present appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as a pre-condition to hearing of his appeal. The order was dictated in the presence of the counsel. Compliance was to be reported in first week of June, 2001. The order was despatched 11.5.2001 to the appellant as well as to his counsel. Notice was sent for appearance today. Today when the case was called out, the appellant is not represented nor present.There is no report of compliance of the Tribunal's order on record. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962....

Koch Rajesh Cd Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2.08 lakhs approximately, penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q and penalties of Rs. 25,000/- each on G.D. Agarwal and Rajiv Agarwal, its directors.3. The common representative of the applicants states that the goods are still under seizure by the department (although they have been kept under suparatnama to the assessee). Hence, the application for waiver of deposit of duty is unnecessary and is dismissed accordingly.4. Penalties have been imposed on the assessee and its two directors on the ground that quantities of recorded compact discs with music and computer software were not entered in the RGI register. The contention that they were in fact entered but the officers failed to take note is prima facie very difficult to accept in the light of the fact that it has been the assessee;s contention throughout (including in the appeal now before us) that there was a failure to enter this quantity ...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. M/S Reliance Petroleum Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal vide order No.C.11/3788/WZB/2000 dated 14.12.2000 dismissed the application for stay of operation of the impugned order filed by the revenue for want of ` Grounds' in the application. The Revenue had filed an application for rectification of mistake. In the application it is accepted that due to inadvertence the grounds for stay remained to be incorporated in the stay application. In such a situation, there is no mistake on the part of the Tribunal and therefore, there is no scope for rectification of mistake. This application is dismissed. The Revenue are free to file a fresh application seeking stay of operation of the impugned order....