Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Goa

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application for early hearing filed by the importers is allowed having regard to the stakes involved i.e. over Rs. 1.00 crore. The appeal is now fixed for hearing on 5.11.2001....

H and R Johnson (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application for retention of the above appeal by the Western Bench at Mumbai is allowed, since Corporate Office of the applicant is situated at Mumbai....

interscape Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner holds that the goods cleared by the appellant in the financial year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were not entitled to the exemption contained in notification 8/98 for the financial year 1998-99 and notification 8/99 for the year 1999-2000, for the reason that one of the conditions in each of these notifications, that the aggregate value of clearances of the manufacture during the preceding financial year has exceeded Rs 3.00 crores.3. The balance sheet filed by the appellant for the year 1997-98 showed the value of clearances to be Rs 5.56 crores, and that for the next financial year to be Rs 11.27 crores. It is on this it has been concluded that the aggregate value exceeded Rs 3.00 crores. It was the contention of the appellant before the Commissioner that these figures in the balance sheet included in addition to be actual value of excisable goods th...

Asoka Spintex Ltd., R.M. Gohel, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC223Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above applications for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, who has confirmed the duty demand of Rs.36,16,232/- against M/s. Ashoka Spintex Ltd. and imposed a penalty of Rs.36 lakhs upon this unit, in addition a penalty of Rs.3 lakhs has been imposed on Shri R.M.Gohel, who is the Executive Marketing of the Company and enalties of Rs.1 lakh each have been imposed upon Shri Umesh K. Shah, Deputy General Manager and Shri B.R. Shah, Cost Accountant. The duty demand consist of two elements : [1] demand of Rs.9,76,047/- for the period 24.7.95 to 31.3.96 which has been confirmed on the ground of non inclusion of certain elements such as administrative overhead, bonus, gratuity and interest etc. in the value of yarn captively consumed. [2] Rs.26,40,185/- for the period 1.4.94 to 23.7.95 on the ground that yarn captively consumed has to be valid on the basis of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules.2. It is the contention...

Wesman Halverscheidt Forgings Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive the predeposit of duty of Rs.4,78,525/- and penalty of Rs. 45,000/- confirmed and imposed by the Commissioner of Customs on the ground that the condition of duty free clearance under Notification No. 203/92 was violated by the importers, and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.2. The importers were issued a show cause notice alleging that the provisions of Notification No. 203/92 CE which is applicable to value based advance licence was not fulfilled by them since they had availed input stage credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The demand was confirmed on this basis and penalty was also imposed. It is the contention of the appellants that they held a quantity based advance licence, and hence the provisions of Notification 203/92 are not applicable. Notification No. 204/92 is applicable to those who hold QBAL and in this Notification, the appellants submitted that there is n...

Annu Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 73,226/- has been confirmed against the applicants herein on Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Pattis/Pattas clearance during the period July to December, 1996 for the reason that, although the applicants had availed of the special procedure as prescribed under Rule 96ZA of the Central Excise Rules 1944, they did not follow the provisions of Rule 96ZC regarding intimation of removal of goods not had they given any intimation about closure of their factory. There is no dispute prima facie that the procedural requirements were not followed therefore no prima facie, case for waiver of predeposit of duty arises and their plea that no goods were produced during the above period since there was no electricity consumption, cannot be decided even prima facie at this stage. We therefore direct predeposit of the entire duty amount and on such predeposit penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the applicants shall stand dispense with and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal.2. Failure ...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The facts being common in both these appeals, these are disposed of vide this single order.2. Appellants had filed price list for Linear Alkyl Benzene in part I at the price of Rs.38750 per M.Tonne. They also filed a price list in Part-II for value of Rs.30,000/- per M.Tonne. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the duty calculated on the difference between the two prices. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeals.3. Before the Commissioner the Supreme Court order in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. were cited [1995 (75) ELT 449] was cited. The Commissioner distinguished the judgment and the other judgment like Goramal Hariram also in upholding the lower order. On perusal of fact we find no reason for the Commissioner to have made such distinction.4. The plea taken by the appellants was that the lower prices were quoted in view of the large quantum of purchase as also on the ground of firm comm...

Bahar Agro Chem and Feeds P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Counsel for the appellant hands over application by the appellant seeking permission to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), impugned in the appeal, has been implemented by the Assistant Commissioner....

Hari Tapes Pvt. Ltd. and Akbar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 29.18 lakhs approx and equivalent penalty are required to be deposited by Hari Tapes Pvt Ltd. Penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs is required to be deposited by Akbar Chitalwala, director of the firm.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that it manufactured sewing thread out of yarn but did not pay duty leviable thereon, during the period 1994-95. The representative for the applicant says that during this period there was no separate heading in the tariff for sewing thread, and that the heading for yarn specifically included sewing threat. We however do not see how this is relevant. It is perfectly possible that more than one item falls for classification in the same tariff heading. It is not contended before us that conversion from yarn to thread did not involve the process of manufacture as their term has been understood and interpreted by the Courts. That being the case, it must prima facie be concluded that the applicant did no...

Fattuji Dajiba Gedam Vs. Superintendent of Police, Akola and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002ACJ1307; 2002BomCR(Cri)371; 2002CriLJ914; 2002(1)MhLj273

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and MRS. Dangre, learned A.P.P. for the respondents.2. The petitioner's son Suresh Fattuji Gedam, died in police lock-up of Police Station, Ramdaspeth, Akola on 30-9-1999. The petitioner was informed of this fact by one Vasantrao Naik who send telegram on 30-9-1999 that Suresh died on 29-9-1999, and the petitioner should immediately come. The petitioner therefore along with his other son Dinesh went to Akola and came to know that post mortem of his son Suresh has already been performed and that an enquiry regarding the death of his son was in progress. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any information. So after about 8 to 10 months he went to Akola and contacted the Police Officer of Ramdaspeth Police Station, who informed that inquiry is still going on, therefore, in the circumstances the petitioner suspected that there is some foul play because of which his son Suresh died in police custody, and took fu...