Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Chunilal Ambaram Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals arise out of the same orders passed by the Collector of Customs (A), Mumbai. These are, therefore, disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. Anand Bullion Refinery, Dahisar (E) was a proprietor unit of Shri Choksi. On 11.3.90 at 6.30 A.M. officers of the M & P Wing visited the premises and conducted a search. As a result of this search, silver ingots and chorsas totally weighing 475.298 kgs. was seized. Statements of Shri Choksi and other person were recorded. At the end of the investigations, show cause notices were issued alleging liability to confiscation of the seized silver under Sections 111(d) and 113(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also alleging levy of penalty on Shri Choksi under Section 112(b) of the Act. One Shri K.L. Patel was also a co-noticee, who is not an appellant before the Tribunal in these proceedings. After hearing the noticees, the Addl. Collector of Customs (P) passed orders confiscating silver under the provisions of Section 111(d) of...

Pardes Dehydration Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant is absent but has requested for disposal on merits. I have heard Shri George for the Revenue.2. The appellants were engaged in the dehydration of garlic and onion.Such goods fell under Item 1(B) of the erstwhile Tariff and under Chapter sub-heading 0701.10 of CETA, 1985 from 28.2.86. Manufacturers of excisable products are required to secure a licence from the Central Excise Authorities in terms of Rule 174(A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Notification issued under that rule permits waiver from licensing regulation provided that a declaration is filed by the manufacturer every year. The present appellants, however, filed a civil suit before the Civil Court, Rajkot in 1984. This was disposed of by the Court in February 1995 directing the department to issue a show cause notice.Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 8.2.1995 directing the appellants to file the requisite declaration. However, in reply to the show cause notice, they accepted not having filed the d...

Godavari Manar Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant is a sugar mill and cleared the molasses that it obtained as a bye-product in the manufacture of sugar on payment of duty. The notices issued to it alleged short levy on the ground that it has sold the molasses at prices which were lower than the cost of its manufacture. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposals in the notices. The manufacture appealed his order and asked the Commissioner for waiver of deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner(Appeals) asked for deposit of entire duty. This not having been done, he dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.3. On the face of it basis for the demand, that the cost of manufacture of the molasses was higher than the sale price, is difficult to sustain. The cost of manufacture is stated to have been certified by a chemist of another sugar mill and the basis for the certificate is not before us. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that it obtained mol...

Ratan A. Lokhande and anr. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj526

ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. Whether the respondent No. 1 Bank has properly given effect to the concession provided to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion within Class - I as per Government of India Office Memorandum No. 1/9/69. Estt. (Scheduled Castes) dated 26-3-1970 and Deptt. of Personnel and A. R. Office Memorandum No. 1/10/74-Estt. (Scheduled Castes) dated 23-12-1974, is the sole question which falls for consideration in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is filed by the Association of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes along with a scheduled class of employee working in the respondent No. 1 Bank. The relief sought for in this petition pertains to the promotions to Junior Management Grade scale II and Junior Management Grade scale III ('JMGS - II' and 'JMGS III' for short). The petitioners are seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the promotions vide order ...

Electronics Instrumentation and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application was called out the applicant were not present inspite of notice. The issue being small the appeal was taken up for final disposal after hearing Shri B.B. Sarkar for the Revenue.2. Modvat credit of 32,094/- was disallowed, resultant duty confirmed and penalty of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the appellant on the ground that credit was taken on the basis of invoices issued by unregistered dealers. Against this order the assessee filed an appeal and application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed a stereo typed order directing pre-deposit of about 50% of the duty. The appellant protested saying that the order was passed without application of mind and pointing out the Gujarat High Court judgement which directed appellate authorities to hear the appellant before making any order on the stay application. The Commissioner (Appeals) went forth and dismissed their appal for failure to comply with the directions, once again, without inviting the ap...

Suchitra N. Date Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When these appeals were called out the appellant was not present inspite of notice sent to the appellant as well as to the advocate on record. From the record maintained I find that from 03/12/1998 the case came up for hearing on nine occasions. On a number of occasions neither the appellant nor any counsel was present. On certain occasions certain counsels appeared but sought adjournment. On 10/09/2000 Shri Shah sought adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel was not present. He also undertook to file a detailed paper book. The bench recorded that the paper book had not been filed and adjourned the proceedings. In these circumstances I do not find it necessary to adjourn the hearing of the appeals. I therefore proceed to decide the appeals on merits on perusal of the documents on record and after hearing Shri B.B. Sarkar for the department.2. In the order penalties were imposed on the appellant under the Customs Act, 1962 as well as under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Th...

Ocl Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant are not present inspite of notice. Since the issue is small their appeal is deposed off on merits.2. Certain goods imported by the appellant were examined on first check basis on 27/04/1993. The duty was paid on 29/04/1993. However at the time of release of the goods the goods were not available and a refund claim was filed. The Assistant Collector dismissed the claim vide his order dated 23/04/1994 observing that the claim of pilferage/theft was not established by producing a police compliant. The importer filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the customs had to be completely satisfied that the goods was not traceable. He observed that not only was that the FIR not placed before the lower authority but that was not placed before him also. He upheld the appeal.3. The appellant submits that the police complaint was filed and the lost complaint was also filed. The appeal is however silent as to why the papers were not placed before either the origina...

P.J. Pipes and Vessels Ltd., Vs. Collector of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. P.J. Pipes and Vessels, the appellant in appeal C/360/92, in May and July, 1989 was issued two special import licences by the licensing authorities for the import of total quantity of 5600 tons of stainless steel plates. The licences required the imported material to be utilised for the manufacture of thread protectors for pipes which were to be utilised for the manufacture of thread protectors for pipes which were to be exported. The appellant imported September, 1989 to February, 1990 a total of 547962 tons of these plates. It claimed and was granted benefit of exemption from duty under notification 513/86.The notification permits import of raw materials and components required for manufacture of goods supplied to Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Oil India Ltd and Gas Authority of India Ltd. It requires the importer to execute a bond binding itself to fulfil the obligation and conditions stipulated in the notification to pay on demand the duty payable but for the exemption on that...

Sheetal Hybrid Seeds Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT678Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal taken up for disposal on the ground that only the fine and penalty were disputed by the appellant.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has found that the appellant imported seeds of Egyptian clover, but declared the goods to be amaranthus seeds. He therefore ordered confiscation of the two consignments totally valued at Rs. 1.02 crores and permitted it to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs on the appellant.3. The counsel for the appellant does not deny that the goods that it imported were clover seeds which were misdeclared as amaranthus seeds.He does not deny that the import of amaranthus seeds was permitted while that the cloves was not, and that the amaranthus seeds were exempted by notification whereas the clover seeds not. He however asks for reduction in the redemption fine and penalty on the ground that the similarly situated appellants had been granted some reduction.Swift Seed Internatio...

Saw Pipes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1318Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellant. These are therefore disposed off under this common order.2. The appellant had claimed credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on certain capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that these goods could not be covered under Rule 57Q inasmuch as these goods did not contribute to the process of manufacture.3. Subsequent to the impugned order being passed the contested goods have come under scrutiny of the Tribunal in a member of identical cases. Relevant case law is available to decide the admissibility of the disputed items in this case.4. LTSS Panels receive supply of power from the power station to the engines. The circuit breakers are devices for safeguarding the machine in case of extreme fluctuations in the electrical power. The admissibility of these items was established in the Tribunal judgement in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 1999 (108) ELT 47. The judgement was subsequently upheld by the Suprem...