Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Metal King Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT329Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import) dated 10.3.2003 wherein he ordered that a sum of Rs. 11,77,233/- be appropriated from the duty deposited by the applicant at the time of provisional release of the goods in dispute. He also ordered that redemption fine of Rs. 1,88,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 47,446/- be recovered from the bank guarantee executed by the applicant at the time of provisional release of the seized goods. In the stay application, the applicants pray, pending hearing and disposal of the appeal, the operation of the impugned order be stayed and the department be restrained from taking out any proceedings for the recovery of the said amounts of penalty and fine. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the department has encashed the bank guarantee executed at the time of provisional release of the seized goods and obtained the draft from the bank concerned, in pursuance of the impugned order. Now the plea of the ap...

Krupa Poly Films Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on M/s. Krupa Poly Films Pvt. Ltd., and penalties on the other two applicants, who are the Managing Director and Authorised Signatory of M/s. Krupa Poly Films Pvt. Ltd., we find that it was possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage as the grievance of the appellants is that the order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Hence after waiving pre-deposit we take up the appeals for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. We find that along with the show cause notice some of the relied upon documents were furnished to the appellants. Since the remaining relied upon documents had not been supplied to them at the stage of issue of show cause notice, there was exchange of correspondence between them and ultimately the remaining documents (relied upon documents) were furnished to them on 10/09/2002 as seen from the letter ...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Peak Crimpers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

i) As per Rule 57GG(7) each foil of invoice book should be authenticated. In this case it is authenticated by their Surat office, registered under Central Excise, the goods have been delivered from Ankleshwar godown which is also registered. ii) The invoices did not have the details as required under Notification No.33/94 CE(NT) dated 04/07/94 and were not authenticated by the Ankleshwar office persons.2. Heard both sides and considered the grounds in appeal and the cross objection and it is found :- a) At material time there was a godown at Ankleshwar and the invoices were issued along with the goods from that godown. However, the dealer i.e. M/s.J.K Synthetics had the Head Office at Surat where the authorized signatory was situated. There is therefore nothing amiss in the authentication being done by the authorized person situated at Surat as taken in the grounds before me. b) The invoices do bear the registration number. There is no finding of the goods being not duty paid or not r...

Hari Vishnu Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty of Rs. 4,43,952/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, we final that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage. Hence after waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. In this case the modvat credit of Rs. 21,91,126/- has been disallowed on the ground inter alia that there was no declaration on the reverse of the bills of entry filed by the importers that the importer will not avail of modvat credit on the consignments imported and on the ground that the subsidiary certificates issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, after removal of the goods, did not bear the date and time of removal of the goods.3. We find that on perusal of the records that the importers appear to have subsequently given declarations that they will not be availing of modvat credit on the goods covered by the respect...

Oriental Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein, who are merchant exporters and holders of value based advanced licence dated 22/03/1993 exported two lakh meters of woven fabrics to Hong Kong by shipping bill dated 08/03/1993. After fulfilment of export obligation they transferred the import licences to four other parties, namely, M/s. Bangalore Mono Filaments, M/s.Plastotex Extrusion and Mouds, M/s. Raj Chem Plast and M/s. Super Poly Packs. Show cause notice dated 30/05/1997 was issued to the appellants and the transferees proposing denial of exemption scheme under Notification 203/92-Cus in respect of imports made against the licences and proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 69,29,020/- along with interest and proposing imposition of penalty on the ground that there was a contravention of condition No. (v)(a) of the notification according to which no input stage credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules should have been availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. Noti...

Amit Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application arises out of the order of the Commissioner, dated 31.1.2003.2. The facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of processed fabrics and avail CENVAT credit on the declared inputs. The appellant was availing the facility of fortnightly payment of duty. He defaulted in fortnightly payment of duty for more than 30 days and more then three times in a financial year thus contravening the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 and Central Excise Rules 2002. The said facility was withdrawn by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 25.6.2001 for a period of two months in terms of Rule 8 of the said Rules. However, the appellant failed to pay duty consignment wise through account current. They seemed to have used the deemed CENVAT credit for payment of duty in respect of their clearances of excisable goods for the period 1.8.2001 to 31.5.2002. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that utilising the deemed credit for payme...