Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Atul Bhatia and Aryan Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 14,57,461/- on the ground that M/s. Aryan Overseas Ltd. imported tin plated sheets and mis-declared it as tin free sheets and also mis-declared the quantity of goods. He also imposed penalty of Rs. One Crore on the company and Rs. 60 lakhs on notice No. (2), the Director of the company.2. The ld. counsel submits that copies of the relied upon documents were not made available to the appellants although the notice stated that if the notices wish to obtain the documents relied upon in the notice, they can do so with prior permission from the DRI. He submits that the notice suffers from basis infirmity because the show cause notice along with documents is required to be issued and in the absence of documents, the applicants could not make any submission and explain their case before the adjudicating authority.3. The departmental representative pointed out that no attempt was made by the applicants to obtain copies of the ...

Jagdish Gurusahani Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT698Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, we direct making the following corrections made in the Tribunal's order passed on 1.2.2001. 1) In page 3, for the sentence commencing on 5^th line with words "A.v. Ingle produced three chits" and ending on the 10^th line with the figures "23,15,500" substitute the following. "A.V. Ingle produced three chits containing calculations. These chits contained various entries including for the period from February 1987 to September 1989 showing the total for all the three sectors to be Rs. 1.24 crores up to 27.3.1989." 2) In page 11 substitute for the sentence in line 17 and 18 the following. "According to the department's calculation, the value of the smuggled gold would be Rs. 575 crores for 1714 kg." 3) In page 13 in the last line for the words "sketch" substitute "the ground plan of the premises as prepared by Air India"...

Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Vs. Annapurna Apparel Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals have been filed by the department against the decision of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai whereby he has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakhs and waived the penalty on the firm. By the said order, he has also reduced the quantum of penalty on the other respondent namely Sunil P. Mehta from 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakhs.2. The facts of the case are the respondent imported a consignment of metal rivets, metal buttons and metal label from Hong Kong. It reported that there was a misdeclaration of the goods as perceived by the DRI and resulted in the investigation. Statement of respondent Sunil was recorded. It was found by adjudicating authority that there was violation of the provisions of the Customs Act on the basis of statement given by the respondent, Sunil Mehta. He therefore confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the respondent importer Annapurna Apparel and ...

Mayur Dyechem Intermediates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant application has been filed for waiver of deposit of duty by Rs. 25,29,484/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,27,000/- imposed on the appellant. The Commissioner in the impugned order has found that the appellant has violated notification 203/92-Cus dated 19.5.92 as number of importers have imported the goods duty free under VABAL and had also simultaneously claimed modvat facility on the inputs used in the manufacture of export products.2. The contention of the appellant in the appeal is that the DGFT authority had granted advance licence and the relevant notification referred to in the licence was 203/93 which the Commissioner has held that the said notification is applicable. The other point is the failure of natural justice. We fell that the point whether the licence was issued to the appellant was a quantity based advance licence has to be considered by the adjudicating authority. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating ...

Rajan Prints and Jawaharlal K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for restoration of the appeal passed by the Tribunal on 15.4.2001. After dismissing the request for modification of the Tribunal's stay order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with the following remarks. "3. Subsequently telegraphic intimations were sent to the counsel presently on record, to the counsel earlier on record and also to the applicants. None of them appeared today. 5. We observe that the assessees' absence today in the face of the notice, their act of the changing counsels from time to time and the peculiar statements made by them point towards their lacs of desire to participate in the appellate proceedings and also indicate their desire to subvert the process of the Tribunal. We dismiss the modification application. Ordinary we wold have given them sufficient time to comply with the earlier directions, but looking at the modus operandi adopted by them we do not feel that the applicants deserves that liberty. We therefore dismiss the appeal Nos. E/...

Shree Digvijay Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The claim of the representative of the appellant that the matter has been finally settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, in support of which he has produced a certificate issued by the competent authority is not disputed by the department representative....

Priya Manufacturers, Babubhai V. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case duty demands of Rs. 4,18,620/- and Rs. 63,428/- have been confirmed against M/s. Priya Manufactures and M/s Raj Engineers respectively and penalties equivalent to amount of duties have been imposed against them. Penalties of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- have been imposed in terms of Rule 173Q(1) respectively on these applicants.A penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- has also been imposed on Shri Babubhai V.Patel, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Priya Manufacturers and partner of M/s. Raj Engineers, Rajkot. Hence, these applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.2. The duty demands arise as a result of holding that the goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. Priya Manufacturers and M/s. Raj Engineers bore the brand name 'Priya' and 'Rajan' respectively which Shri Babubhai V. Patel admitted belongs to M/s. Shramdeep Industries of which he was the proprietor.3. Ld.Counsel's submission that the words 'Priya' and 'Rajan' are not brand name but common name which cou...

Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported 'industrial camp site units-portacabins. The shipment apart form parts required to construct such cabins also included a number of other items such as furnitures, gas range, tea coffee machine, water cooler, air conditioners and kitchen equipments such as frying pan, crockery etc. The clearance was claimed under para 22 of Exim Policy, 1992-97 which permitted import of capital goods under OGL. The assessing officers were of the opinion that the said articles would not fall under heading 9406 but would attract classification under respective heading. It was also held that such goods fall outside the scope of para 22 and thus required specific licence for their importation. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner passed the order. He observed that the phrase" prefabricated housing materials" did not cover the cabins. He, therefore, confiscated the entire shipment but allowed its redemption against fine of Rs. 30 lakhs. He also directed assessments to be d...

Unique Poles and Tubes Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT547Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant manufactured poles to be used in the transmission of electric energy. The process by which it made these poles consisted of welding together three lengths of mild thread pipes and some other process. Notice issued to it proposed classification of these pipes under heading 7308.90 as structures, and demanded duty on them.Adjudicating on the notice, the Additional Commissioner after giving an opportunity to the manufacturer to answer this point classified the goods under 7306.90. After having done so, he has held the process to be manufacture. The assessee did not comply with this order, The Commissioner therefore dismissed the appeal.3. The assessee appealed this order to the Commissioner (appeals). In the stay application that was filed in that appeal, it contended that process of making poles did not amount to manufacture citing in support Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Vikrant Engineers 1999 (109) ELT 440.After considering this decision and also pointing out a contra...

Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Vs. Sangeeta Metal (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT306Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The respondent to this appeal imported a consignment of stainless steel sheets and plates and filed a bill of entry for its clearance.The department was of the view that the value of the goods was too low and proposed to enhance it. It proposed to enhance it by a figure which represented the price of similar goods published in the Metal Bulletin with appropriate adjustment for freight and quality. Adjudicating on this proposal, the value of the goods was accordingly enhanced. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority finding a contravention of principles of natural justice. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case and again enhanced the value.The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there was not evidence of contemporary imports of the goods identical or similar to those under consideration and concluded that reliance on the Metal Bulletin in that situation could not be sustained. He therefore allowed the appeal....