Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Verma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT120Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal, the classification of the product "Oona" manufactured by the appellant, has already been decided by the Tribunal. In its order in appeal E/248/95A of this appellant, the Tribunal held that the product was rightly classifiable as a medicament under heading 3003 of the tariff.2. Therefore, applying the ratio of that decision, we dismiss the appeal filed by the manufacturer....

India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd.,nitIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT440Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application (E/1457) of India Medtronic P.Ltd. is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 70.11 lakhs approximately and penalty of Rs. 72.11 lakhs. Applications by Bankim Mehta, its director, Nitin J.Joshi, its director and K.R. Patel, an employee of it, are for waiver of deposit of penalties imposed on them of Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the goods imported by India Medtronic P. Ltd. were not entitled to the exemption contained in entry 244 of the table to the notification 23/98. This entry exempts medical equipment specified in list 22 of the notification, and accessories of such medical equipment. Entry 11 of list 22 specifies heart valve prosthesis including valve frames. The Commissioner finds that the goods that the applicant imported were not heart valves entitled to exemption for the reason that they were consumable and packaging materials. From the explanation given to us by the counsel for the applicant, supported by the litera...

Sai Shipping Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT89Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant for failure to file the import manifest for the vessel Jaya Sun within 24 hours of its arrival, as required in Section 30 of the Act, and for the unloading of the unmanifested item prior to the filing of manifest in contravention of the provisions of Section 32 of the Act.3. The contraventions relates to 18 items out of a total of 46 items in the manifest. Out of these, 28 had been included in the manifest that the appellant filed in advance of the arrival of the ship. The ship arrived at port on 2nd October 2000 at 11.00 a.m. and the manifest was filed on the 4th of that month. The Commissioner has accepted that the delay of a day in filing of the manifest was due to the failure of the appellant's computer. He also accepts that the failure was technical and there was no intention not to file the manifest. The goods in question have been accounted for. He therefore takes a lenient...

Advance Multitech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT325Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellant was not entitled during the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 for the exemption contained in notification 175/86.3. The reason that the Commissioner advanced in support of his conclusion is that the investment made by the appellant in its plant and machinery resulted in the value of such plant and machinery exceeding Rs. 60 lakhs. This, the Commissioner says, disentitled the appellant to be considered as a small scale industrial undertaking to which the benefit of notification was available.4. The notification itself does not require fulfilment of any condition relating to the value of plant and machinery installed in the manufacturer's factory. It provides that the exemption shall be applicable to a factory which is an undertaking registered with the Directorate of Industries in any State or the Development Commissioner (Small Industries) as a small scale industry under the provisions of the Indust...

Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company Limited Vs. the Rajasthan Navsagar M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR162; (2002)1BOMLR812; 2002(25)PTC372(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The first Respondent is a partnership firm of which Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the Partners. By Application No. 468100 they applied for registration of The mark 'Steamer Brand'. The same was advertised in Class I in the Trade Mark Journal No. 958 of 1.5.1989. The Petitioner herein a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 are manufacturers and do business in vast variety of chemical products used in Industries. They have factories at Ambernath in Maharashtra State. Kumhari in Madhya Pradesh as also in Amreli in Gujarat. They filed their notice of opposition dated 21.6-1989 raising various grounds. The Respondents filed their counter statement by 28.12.1989. In support of the opposition, the Petitioners filed three affidavits of (1) Dinesh Gatulal Mehta, Secretary of the Petitioner Company dated 15.3.1990, (2) Manohar Shridhar Ranade dated 15.3.1990, and (3) Minanath Narsinha Ranade dated 16.4.1990. Similarly on behalf of the Respondents one of their Partne...

SarpIn Pharmacal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant was directed to produce proof of validation of Bank Guarantee vide order No.CI/2311/WZB/2001 dated 11.8.01. there is no response. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed for non compliance with the statutory requirement of Sec.35F of the Central Excise Act....

Eramu N. Abbobacker Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed on the applicant on the ground that he failed to declare 344 mobile telephones and other goods valued at Rs. 13.2 lakhs which he brought with him when he flew into Sahar airport from Dubai.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. Although it is claimed that applicant has an excellent prima facie case on merits, there is no justification in support. Financial hardship is pleaded on the ground that the applicant has no money, movable or immovable property, and that persons from whom he borrowed the money for importing the goods are pestering him to recover it.3. On merits, prima facie the case is against the applicant. The contention of the departmental representative that, if the applicant's standing is so good that his friends would give him loans exceeding 13 lakhs without any security, he would be able to raise some more money, appears to us to be sound.4. We therefore direct the applicant to deposit ...

Attic Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Dipesh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals C/418, 426, 176/01 taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. In each of the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant and imposed penalty on it. He finds that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92, which had been extended to them, for the reason that one of the conditions in the notification, that modvat credit should not be availed of in the manufacture of exported goods had been contravened.3. The contention on behalf of Dipesh Fabrics (appeal 426) is that it did not avail of the exemption contained in notification 203/92. The import licence which was issued to it was a quantity based licence, and carried with it the benefit of exemption contained in notification 204/92, which did not contain any such condition. A copy of the licence which is referred to in the show cause notice indicates it to have a limiting factor of b...

Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The notice issued to the appellant invoking the provision under Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act proposed recovery of the duty that had been foregone on the goods imported by it in terms of notification 203/92. The basis for the proposal was that a condition in the notification that modvat credit should not have been availed in the manufacture of exported goods had been contravened. In the order impugned before us, the Commissioner has confirmed the liability to duty and imposed penalty on the appellant.3. The show cause notice does not indicate any basis for the charge that modvat credit had been availed of; or the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation that the importer suppressed the fact of availing modvat credit. The question of suppressing the fact of availing the modvat credit would arise if it has been shown that credit has been availed of. The issue in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Plastchem Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (120) ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Umang Computers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Umang Computers, the respondent to this appeal imported a consignment of mouse pads i.e. pads which are used along with a computer mouse and claimed classification, both for purposes of import trade control and assessment to duty for Customs tariff under heading 8473.30. The department noted that the goods were made of rubber and concluded that by application of Note 1(a) of Section XVI of the Tariff, the goods would be excluded from that section for classification. They would be rightly classifiable under heading 40.16.Goods imported under this to the Import Control Trade Policy requires a licence. In the absence of that licence the goods were unauthorised.The Additional Commissioner, after considering the submission that were made on behalf of the importer, held the good to be classifiable under 40.16 and 40161000.10. He ordered them to be confiscated with an option to redeem on fine and imposed penalty. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods we...