Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Sharda Paper Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC242Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We dispense with the pre-deposit of duty of rs.6,10,897/- levied upon the applicants herein on the ground of ineligibility to the benefit of duty free import under Notification No. 203/92-Cus on the ground of (SIC) of modvat credit contrary to the condition of the Notification and pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 60,000/-, stay recovery thereof and proceed dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides as the matter lies in a narrow compass.2. The contention of the appellants that neither (SIC) they received the show cause notice of personal hearing, is no controverted by the Revenue. The case records produced before us by the Id. DR also do not bear out that show cause notice or that the notice for personal hearing was issued. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision after issue of show notice and after extending reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard and explaining their case....

Plastic Converters, Trupti Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The order of the Commissioner(Appeals) impugned in this appeal,clubs the clearances made from seven factories with the clearances made by Jhaveri Polymers Ltd, on he view that these were "dummy units" created of Jhaveri Polymers Ltd and based on the total value of clearances, denies the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 175/86.It also imposes penalty of Rs 15.00 lakhs each on these seven units.2. Once the Commissioner(Appeals) accepts that these factories or units, had no independent existence and clearances were only the creation of Jhaveri Polymers Ltd, he could not then be separately conferred on them an identity distinct from Jhaveri Polymers Ltd for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Following his own finding, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order imposing penalties on them.3. Jhaveri Polymers Ltd has settled its dues under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, as certified by the competent authority in its certificate dated 10.3.1999.4. A....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Indus Paper

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal had dismissed the reference application filed by the Commissioner on 30.9.1999 arising out of its order communicated to him on 25.6.98 as being barred by limitation. This application prays for restoring the reference application.2. The ground in the application appears to be that in a similar mater where the Commissioner filed a combined application for rectification of the Tribunal's order and the reference application, the Tribunal directed filing of the reference application and subsequently allowed.That is not correct. The Tribunal dismissed what it perceived to be an application for rectification of mistake leaving it to the Commissioner to file if he chose, an application for reference. This is what the Tribunal has done in the present case too. The Tribunal treated the application filed by the department purporting to be for rectification of mistake or a reference application, containing no questions of law for reference as an application for rectification of mi...

Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 75,45,059/- confirmed against the applicants herein on the ground that they have cleared modvat inputs as such without payment of duty and penalty of Rs. 75,00,000/- imposed upon them and stay recovery thereof and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The contention of the appellants is that the principles of natural justice has been violated in as much as the documents relied upon in the show cause notice viz., RG 23A Part I register, goods receipt note and goods receipt register were not supplied to them and further the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice for the reason that they were granted personal hearing by one Commissioner and the order has been passed by another Commissioner. Further, they submit that demand is barred by limitation since the audit report in 1992 itself had pointed out that the practice of clearing modvat inputs without payment of duty was impermissible and...

Suresh Raghunath Gupte Vs. Taraknath Rajnarayan Mishra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1996; 2002BomCR(Cri)236; 2002CriLJ1276

Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/original complainant, Suresh Raghunath Gupte, Food Inspector, Thane Municipal Corporation, Thane, being aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 7.11.1985, passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1984. By the impugned judgment, the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge. Thane, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1984, filed by the original accused/respondent No. 1 herein, Taraknath Rajnarayan Mishra, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, under Section 16(l)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The prosecution case, in short, can be briefly narrated as follows :The appellant herein/original complainant, Suresh Raghunath Gupte,was a Food Inspector, working in Thane Municipal Council. He ...

Oceana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC430

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 8.88 lakhs and penalty of equivalent amount.2. The applicant is a textile processor and in the capacity of which stenter was fixed in accordance with the regulations issued in this behalf. On 13.12.1998, the applicant made two applications to the Assistant Commissioner (which the latter received on 14.12.1998) intimating closure of its stenter and two float dryer machines with effect from the midnight of 15.12.1998 till 31.1.1999. The stenter and the float dryer machines remain closed till 28.2.1999. The applicant claimed abatement of the duty payable during this period. The Commissioner passed order allowing abatement for this stenter and the float dryer machines from 22.12.1998 to 31.12.1998 observing that the officers have sealed on 26.12.1998. The assessee has filed an appeal against this order disallowing the abatement from 16.12.1998 to 22.12.1998 (appeal E/2646/00). No stay application has been filed, as there is no dem...

Patel Filters Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The issue relates to denial of modvat credit taken on the strength of endorsed challan-cum-invoice issued by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). The contention of the appellant is that the Board's circular dated 10/04/1986 has equated the SAIL's delivery challan-cum-invoices with gate pass by treating such delivery challan-cum-invoices as a valid duty paying document and therefore the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of SBS Organics Ltd. vs. CCE 1990 (45) ELT 701 which holds that where credit is admissible on gate passes endorsed up to any number of times will hod good even in the case of taking credit on SAIL's delivery challan-cum-invoice.3. We find that the authorities below have relied upon the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer & Lawrie Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 200 (116) ...

Ramesh K. Agarwal, Ravi Shankar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT282Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confiscating under Clauses (d) and (i) of Section 113 of Act, the goods described by Ravi Shankar Films Pvt. Ltd 35mm perforated polyester positive film in roll films but found, on examination, to be slumps as it is, imposing penalty on the exporter and on Ramesh Agarwal, Vice President of the company, and Manohar Prasad, the director. The appeal by the Commissioner seeks to enhance the penalty imposed on Ravi Shankar Films Pvt Ltd. 2. Representative of the appellants does not deny that the goods were, on examination, found to be slumps as it is and not what they were declared to be. He contends that confiscation of the goods under Clauses (d) and (i) of Section 113 cannot be ordered for the reason that export of the goods were not prohibited, and they were not dutiable or exported under claim of draw back; that they were not dutiable or entitled for exportation under draw back, cannot be questioned. The provisions of Clause (i) o...

Deepak Kothari and Bhutnath Das Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive the requirement of predeposit of penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed on Shri Deepak Kothari and penalty of Rs.2 lakhs imposed on Bhutnath Das by the Commissioner of Customs and proceed to decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. Penalty on both these persons have been imposed on the ground that applicant No.1, namely Shri Deepak Kothari, was an alley of Shri Bhupendra Kapadia, Managing Director of Neelkamal Jewellery Exports Limited, who is the main person concerned with the smuggling activities and aided him so as to facilitate unauthorised disposal of the smuggled diamonds in DTA and Shri Bhutnath Das has been held liable to penalty on the ground that he was engaged by Kothari initially as one of the Directors and latter as Production Manager to facilitate the illegal activities carried out by Neelkamal Jewellery Exports Ltd. 3. It is contention of the counsel for Shri Deepak Kothari that not only the documents relied upon in ...

Gandhi Parekh Investment Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalties imposed, we find that the issues being short the appeals could be disposed off at this stage.Both sides agreeing, this was done after waiving the condition of pre-deposit.2. The order-in-appeal disposes off two appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the appeals before us therefore arise out of the single order. They are therefore disposed off vide this common order.3. Some defective goods were received for re-conditioning in terms of Rule 173H on 27/01/1995. After the required processing, these goods were again cleared in four lots during the period 04/09/1995 to 30/09/1995. As per the trade notice issued in pursuance of sub-rule (3) of the said Rule the goods had to be removed within six months of their receipt or within a period as extended by the property authority.4. The allegation of the department was that no extension was sought.On this ground duty of Rs...