Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Khukri Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed of Rs.7,65,252/-, modvat reversal of Rs.21,67,562/- and penalty totally amounting to Rs.4,52,000/- 2. The appellants filed classification list seeking benefit of notification 38/97 which granted confessional rate of duty on clearances of specified aggregate value made in a financial year.However, the assessee removed dutiable goods without payment of duty.This is not contested by the applicants. They accept the clearance without payment of duty but submit that he benefit to the notification being grated the duty not paid would come to Rs. 369,467/- The blanket denial of the benefit of the notification and reversal of all the modvat credit taken is also contested.3. We have heard Shri S.P. Sheth for the applicant and Shri M.H.Shaikh for the Revenue.4. The assessee's act of clearance of goods without payment of any duty cannot be caused by inadvertence. The counsel was correct in saying that the benefit of the notificati...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported on automatic painting machine in CKD form.Although the individual packages contained components, in terms of the Interpretative Note 2A of the Rules of Interpretation of the tariff, the goods were classified under heading 84.24 as complete machines.This import was during September, 1998. The appellants also procured other machines falling under 84.24 which were manufactured in India and were purchased as fully assembled pieces. These were received during the period 01/08/1928 to 14/02/1999. Capital goods modvat credit of Rs.1,98,28,732/- was taken by the appellants in April, 1999. Show cause notice was issued on 20^th September, 1999 seeking reversal of the credit so taken on the ground that on the date of receipt of the goods during the factory the table annexed to Rule 57Q excluded goods falling under heading 84.24. The Dy. Commissioner upheld the allegation relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of PMP Textile Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (108)...

Abbas Master 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. 25 lakhs.The penalty has been imposed on the applicant on the ground that he was concerned with exporting quantities of masoor dal misdeclared to be partially oriented yarn.2. Counsel for the applicant says that there is no basis for the Commissioner's conclusion. The statements of Chhotalal Hirji Mamania and Makrand A. Bhaskar do not implicate the applicant at all. The applicant was a broker in the transaction between Rajeev Pathak and Excel International with regard to sale of POY manufactured by the latter and that is why his bank account had been made use of by these person.3. The department representative points out that the commissioner has relied upon the statement of the applicant himself, admitting his involvement in the loading of masoor dal in the export containers which were stated to contain yarn. he points out that eh counsel for the applicant is not able to substantiate his contention that the applicant retra...

M/S Impel Petrol Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. There is no evidence of compliance with the terms of the Tribunal's stay order....

Shree and Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC741

1.On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit, we find that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done on granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.4,41,548.90.2.The appellants manufacture HDPE tapes, woven fabrics and woven sacks.For long time these articles were classified under Chapter 54 and Chapter 63 respectively. latter on account of a High Court order the classification was taken to be under Chapter 39. However, up to the time the assessee filed the classification on 01/04/1994 the earlier classification prevailed. In this classification list they also claimed benefit of notification 175/86. Show cause notice was issued in relation to this notification that correct notification was 1/93. In the absence of any reply the Assistant Collector issued an ex-parte order on 25/01/1994. He did not confine himself to the allegations in the show cause notice. Apart from denying the benefit of notification 1/93 he also dire...

Rukhama Inds. Vs. Ccex, Aruangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The amount of duty involved is Rs. 29,781/- and a penalty of Rs. 3000/-.3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that this amount, representing the duty which the applicant took as modvat credit, and transferred from one such account to another, was not supported by any evidence of duty paying document.4. Having regard to this fact, and the amount involved, I decline to admit the appeal. Hence the stay application is also dismissed as infructuous....

AmIn Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC272Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant bottle water under the name "Parle Bailley Aqua" w.e.f. 1994 onwards. On 14/02/1995 the officers of Central Excise visited the factory. The Director, Shri Zamin, in his statement deposed as follows: "The manufacturing process of said water- raw water is demineralised and is then mixing raw water in demineralised water on line. Then this water passes through micron filter and U.V. disinfection unit and taken on to storage tank and then it is sterilised and taken to the filling. We are admixing raw water in demineralised water to achieve the specification given by M/s. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd." 2. Samples of the water were drawn. The Dy. Chief Chemist opined that the sample was composed of water containing dissolved mineral salts, mainly of calcium, iron and sodium. He then referred to some letter which was not in the proceedings and said: "is appears, after demineralisation, (zero ppm) some minerals had been added".3. Based on the report the show cause notice was issued on...

Bic International Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(99)LC113Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein imported "CFL Energy Saver Lamps" purchased from G & v. International, Hong Kong as per invoice dated 15.1.1999 indicating c.i.f. value of the goods as HK $ 79.026. The declared price was not accepted by the Customs authorities who loaded the value to Rs. 13,28,040 as against the declared value of Rs. 4,34,643/-. As a result of such leading, the duty liability was enhanced by Rs. 5,76,139/-. The goods were confiscated with option to redeem and penalty was imposed on the proprietor of the firm, Shri Brij Mohan Bhatia. The importers filed appeal No. C/236/2000-A which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 839/2000-A dated 10.10.2000 in which it was held that "the adjudicating authority did not give any cogent reasons for ignoring the transaction value....In such a situation, we are clear in our minds that the authority was not justified in loading the value of the goods on the basis of the so called contemporary imports....We hold that the adj...

Parmanand Singh, Dinesh Modi and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeals are against penalty imposed under rule 209A on each of the appellants, in connection with evasion of duty by the manufacturers of goods which they have been found to have dealt with under rule 209A.3. Counsel for the appellants states that the manufactures have settled the demands pending against them under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. He cites certificate dated 4.5.1999 issued to M.D. Industrial Works (of which Parmanand Singh is proprietor); certificate dated 20.4.1999 issued to Unique Industrial Corporation (of which Dinesh Modi is a partner) and certificate dated 22.4.1999 for N.M. Dharia & Co. (of which Ketan Dharia is a partner). In accordance with the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Gaurang Mehta vs. CC in writ petition 1339/99 (referred to in the Tribunal's decision in 2000 (122) ELT 853), the proceedings against these persons would come to an end.4. The departmental representative brings to our notice that the Gujarat High Court has taken a dif...

Meenakshi Patel and ors. Vs. Engineering Export Promotion Council and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj141

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court No. 2 at Mumbai in reference No. 472 of 1995, wherein it has been held that appropriate Government for Engineering Export Promotion Council, that is respondent No. 1 herein, is not State Government but the Central Government.2. The facts giving rise to the issue are as follows :The petitioners joined service with respondent No. 1 as clerks and were working as such till their services were terminated on 2-5-1994. According to the petitioners, their services were terminated on 2-5-1994. According to the petitioners, their services were terminated orally, without assigning any reasons for the same. Legal dues of the petitioners were also not paid. The petitioners complained about their wrongful termination and submitted their respective demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 2-5-1994. The demands were referred for adjudication by the State Government in Refere...