Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

M.B. Saiyed Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is about the penalty imposed on the appellant, M.B. Saiyed, Excise In-charge. The question involved in this case is imposition of the said penalty is correct or not. The appellant is excise in-charge of the assessee, M/s. Prakash Calander Factory. There was violation of the Central Excise provisions inasmuch as taxes were not paid when they were due. To put it in other words the RG1 was not properly filled. The order drops the demand of Rs. 54,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee. Against the said order an appeal was fled by the assessee (E/17/91-Bom). In the said appeal, by order No. 3297/97 dated 21.7.1997 the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee. In views thereof, having gone into the facts of the case, I do not wish to interfere with the order of the penalty which is very minimum....

Estevan D'Souza And Thomas Vs. Commissioner Of Customs And

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Goa passed on 30.11.88. In the order, the Additional Collector has concluded that the fishing trawler Shri Ganesh owned by Estevan D'Souza was used for transporting smuggled goods form off-coast of Goa up the Mandovi river to a spot near Old Goa where they were unloaded on to trucks. She has ordered confiscation of the trawlers, giving the owner an option to redeem them on fine and imposing penalty on both these appellants.2. The contentions of the common counsel for the appellants are these.The Commissioner has not relied upon any evidence other admission in the statement of Thomas D'Souza and Estevan D'Souza. These statements were recorded at night and therefore not admissible in law. They were also retracted immediately and therefore, the admissions made in them cannot be used against them without corroboration, which is lacking. He contends alternatively that there is no evidence to prove that the g...

Singh Scrap Processors P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal field before him against the order of the Deputy Commissioner in the following words. 5.In the instant case investigation conducted by the department revealed that M/s. Singh Scrap Processors P. Ltd., had knowingly availed of Modvat credit on the fake/forged duty paying documents. I find that during the stage of enquiry itself the said appellant debited partly the duty involved, which is also direct admission of the guilt on their part. 6. In this view of this matter, I find no infirmity in the Deputy Commissioner's finding, and while upholding it I dismiss the appeal." 3. It does not need any great discussion to conclude that this is a perfunctory way of disposing of the appeal. The order does not do justice either to the appellant before the Commissioner or the department. The appellant was entitled to be given a reason for not accepting as genuine the ground in its appeal which were contained present in its appeal (apart from t...

Numech Emballage Ltd. and Sudhir Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is a consequence out of various discrepancies that were found by the officers on a visit to the appellant's factory. Following a notice issued to the appellant, the Commissioner confirmed the shortage and excess of goods found, demanded duty, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty.2. The first charge relates to 7093 kg. of high density polyethylene fabrics which the appellant had received from Multiwall Sack and Paper Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner accepts the appellant's claim that these goods were manufactured by that company and sent to a job work for being made into sacks by him. He says however since the goods were not covered under a document issued under Rule 57F(2), appellant was liable to pay duty on them and confiscated. The goods were not manufactured by the appellant. The question of paying duty does not arise. Once it is accepted that the goods were manufactured by another manufacturer, the duty on the goods is to be paid by that manufacturer. I also do n...

Plastichemix Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this case is about the exigibility of the modvat credit as to registration of the dealers who would give the duty paying documents, namely invoice. The only point here is that the assessee has so called endorsed it one unit to another and under these circumstances question arises whether this is entitled for modvat credit.2. In may view the same is not available in view of the judgment of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v.CCE 2000 (116) ELT 364 which is decided against the assessee. Following the same, I dismiss the case of the appellant. Appeal dismissed....

Rahul Associates Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on the ground of undervaluation of various electronic goods such as integrated circuits, transistors, etc., is argued before us. The submission of the learned counsel is that the charge of undervaluation is based on statement of the importers which have been subsequently retracted. He further submits that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has already been paid and that has been noted in the Commissioner's final order confiscating the goods and the confiscated goods are still in the custody of Customs. He therefore submits that no further deposit is called for. The prayer is opposed by the learned DR who reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.2. In view of the fact that the goods confiscated are still with the department and a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has already been deposited by the applicant, we therefore hold no further deposit is called for and dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the...

Manoj Manaharlal Bhatt, Riken Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on M/s. Chaudhary & Sons on the ground that:(a) goods imported were found to be in excess of the quantity declared, (b) not in conformity entirely with the description, (c) under invoice and impostor of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the proprietor of M.s. Chaudhary & Sons, Kanwal Chaudhary, and of Rs. 10,000/- on Manoj Bhatt, CHA and Rs. 5,000/- imposed on Riken Manseta clerk of the CHA, Learned counsel Shri H.R. Shetty submits that the goods in question had been declared as footwear with rubber sole and had been correctly valued at US $ 2.00 and the department has taken their value to be US $ 3.60 on the basis of an invoice which M/s. Chaudhary & Sons submits was the wrong invoice which they had asked for cancellation in order to get the correct invoices for the goods. He submits that no penalty is warranted on M/s.Chaudhary & Sons, but admits that the goods were found in excess and ...

Mithubava Padhiyar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal has been filed in 22nd December, 1997 against the order of the adjudicating authority passed on 27.4.1985 and issued on 23.5.1985.2. It is stated by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is an uneducated and layman. She also states that the appellant has lost all the property in earthquake which happened in the year 2001, 16 years after the adjudication order was passed. Therefore she pleads mercy of the Tribunal.3. I have considered the ingenious plea made by the learned advocate.When the order has been passed in 1985, the person has to explain to the Tribunal for excusing the delay in filing the appeal belatedly. It is true that applicant is a layman and uneducated. These two things cannot take the cover of enforcement of the rights belatedly. I sympathize that he has lost the property in the earthquake but that does not mean he could have filed the appeal belatedly....

Puja Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. At the last hearing, the departmental representative informed the bench that notice has been issued to Betul Oil and Flour Ltd., the licensee in respect of a number of licences issued to it including the licence which had been transferred by Veekay Pvt. ltd., which the appellant before me claims has in turn been transferred to it. The show cause notice proceeds on the basis that the licences were not issued in accordance with law. He suggested that disposing of this appeal would have the effect of adjudicating on the dispute pending before the Commissioner. The counsel for the appellant contended that the goods were validly covered by a licence and the licensing authority has confirmed this to be the case in his letter to the custom house dated 14.12.99. He pointed out that in similar circumstances, the Dy.Commissioner of Customs had himself permitted clearance of Veekay products against similar licence subject to the bank guarantee for the duty amount. Since it was the appeal that...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Pooja Synthetics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to follow the decision rendered by him in Dinesh Silk Mills case. The impugned order states that in view of the findings rendered by the appellate authority in Dinesh Silk Milks case, he could not find any reason to a conclusion that the goods were non duty paid merely for the reason that they were received in an illicit manner. In the Dinesh Silk Mills case there were statements recorded of the proprietor and some affidavits were filed. Whether in the instant case the same was done.This was not discussed by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority must discuss the facts of the case and find out whether it meets fully with the facts of the Dinesh Silk Mills case. In the absence of the things, I am afraid I cannot agree with the conclusion arrived at by the adjudicating authority. I therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for de novo hearing....