Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Bosco James D'Souza And Nixon Vs. Commissioner Of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 23/24 September, 1994 Air Customs Officers examined and cleared courier baggage arrived from Singapore by flight No. AI-409 at Sahar Airport, Mumbai. After clearing the baggage the ACO went for detention of some packages and on his return he found the drawer of the counter slightly opened and two brown paper wrapped packages lying therein. None came forward to clear the same. Statement of the 9 courier staff was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, where they all denied knowledge of the said packages. The packages were examined and found to contain 18 pieces of hard discs valued at Rs. 1.69 lakhs. The consignee was shown as Shri Ashraf, Delta Travels & Tours, Crawford Market, Bombay. The goods were seized under the reasonable belief that they had been smuggled into India and hence liable to confiscation. Statement of Bosco D'Souza, working as Operation Assistant of TNT Courier was recorded on 24/09/1994 wherein he stated that in...

Katare Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide stay order No. C-I/889/WZB/2001 dated 26/07/2001 pre-deposit of entire duty amount of Rs. 75,965/- was directed within a month from the receipt of the stay order. The order was issued on 01/08/2001. There is no proof that the order has been complied with. Hence the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Morarjee Goculdas Spg. and Wvg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT685Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application attempts to bring out an error in the Tribunal's Final Order No. D-II/192-93/WZB/2001 dt. 16.1.2001. In this order the Tribunal upheld the order of penalty (but reduced by the appellate authorities, on the ground that although duty on yarn was payable at the spindle stage, the assessees had chosen to defer the point of payment to the point of clearances of resultant fabrics.2. In the application Public Notice No. 40/96 dt. 23.7.96 issued by CCE Mumbai-I is cited which cites the notes explaining important changes persuant to the introduction of Finance Bill 1996. Citation is made of paragraph 30.6(6) of the said notes which reads as under:- "The yarn manufactured in a composite mill and cleared as such will be subjected to the applicable rate of excise duty. The credit of duty paid on inputs contained in such yarn is also permissible under the normal modvat procedure. A composite mill while clearing grey fabrics would be required to discharge duty on yarn used in th...

Gujarat Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There is no material on record to show that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been kept frozen in the modvat account of the appellant as directed by the stay order No. C-1/2165-66/WZB/2001 dated 03/08/2001.Hence the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Sarup Tanneries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All these paper are forwarded to the Hon'ble President CEGAT New Delhi for orders on transfer....

Shree Sidhi Ispat Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT600Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to abatement, provided in Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 3 of the Act that the appellant, who has induction furnace, had claimed. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO prescribes conditions subject to which abatement shall be granted. Clause (b) of this sub-rule requires the manufacturer to intimate the figures of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent of Central Excise immediately before production in its factory is stopped. Clause (e) requires him to declare, when he starts production again that his factory remain closed for a continuous period, indicating the time and date of commencement of closure and time and date of its completion. In the order impugned in the appeal before us, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that, in the absence of these particulars, the appellant was not entitled to abatement.Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd....

Aura Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we direct following corrections be made in our order dated 28.1.2000.2. In the last sentence of the order, add the following:- "and, correspondingly, the penalty imposable"....

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Mahalaxmi Fabrics Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case refund claim for Rs. 44,546/- filed by the respondent herein was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that since the assessee did not lodge a protest letter the claim for refund was time barred. On appeal the lower appellate authority accepted the contention of the assessee that in the absence of any dispute of debit of duty in PLA under protest and in the face of the fact that all the documents evidenced payment of duty under protest non lodging of formal protest under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not result in denial of refund to the assessee. Revenue seeks admission of appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that refund is eligible to the respondent.3. Since duty was admittedly debited under protest which shows that duty had been paid under protest, non-filing of formal protest letter under Rule 233B is not sufficient to disentitle the respondent for refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that refu...

Euresian Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it did not import the goods at all. The importer was K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to whom the appellant had transferred the advance licence that it was granted. He contends that the show cause notice had evidently been issued by reference to the import licence and not the bill of entry. He is not able to produce the bill of entry in question since he was not the importer.3. The letter dated 15.7.1994 of the appellant to K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Ltd. prima facie indicates that the advance licence, referred to in the show cause notice, had been transferred by the appellant. The bill of entry under which the goods were imported is dated 19.12.1994. It therefore prima facie appears that the goods in question were not imported by the appellant. We would, however, like the Commissioner to decide this aspect.4. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.Counsel for the appellant undertakes that he will p...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Boehringer Mannhheim (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal No. E/535/2001-Mum is filed by CCE Mumbai VII. In the forwarding letter it is claimed that the appeal was being filed within three months in terms of Section 35 E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is also an application for condonation of delay with the following grounds; "Application is filed praying for condonation of delay in filing appeal by 8 days as tracing of case records delayed the processing of the file".2. The case records referred to above consist of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus it is clear that there were no records to be traced.3. Shri T. Bodade submits that the delay is only of a week and there should be no objection to condonation.4. The Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing of an appeal where it is shown that there was sufficient cause preventing the presentation within the period. The grounds given by the Commissioner are entirely unsatisfac...