Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Sarp Consumer Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the importer is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 25.9.98.2. Proceedings relate to import of crystal glassware by the appellant under two Bills of Entry Nos. 60/98 and 61/98 dated 14.7.98. The Commissioner rejected the declared value and enhanced the same from Rs. 2,87,006/- to Rs. 8,55,091/- and from Rs. 5, 55,072/- to Rs. 14,23,149/-. The Commissioner also found that the importer had misdeclared the quantity of goods and ordered confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. He also found that some of the goods had been imported without valid import licence and therefore, they are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d). A redemption fine of Rs. 6,11,000/- was imposed in respect of the goods imported under Bills of Entry Nos. 60798 and 61798 respectively. A penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- was also imposed on the importer. Aggrieved by the order, the importer has come up in appeal.3. On examination of th...

Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd., T.G. Patel, Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT319Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are at the instance of assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner(Adjudication) dated 27.7.98. Challenge is directed against imposition of penalty of an amount of Rs. 41,21,321/-.Duty confirmed under the impugned order had already been paid by the assessee prior to the issue of show cause notice.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of materials handling equipments and discharging the duty liability on them. They were discharging the duty liability on its clearance at the factory gate. In cases when orders are received by the appellant for turnkey project and where there are escalation clauses in the contract, the appellant used to pay duty on the escalation charges after final settlement of the amount between the appellant and its customers and upon receipt of payment thereof. This was the procedure followed by the assessee for long years. While so, show cause notice dated 1.5.98 was issued calling upon the assessee as to why excise duty to the ex...

Nikko Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT223Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Notice dated 22.1.1999 issued to Nikko Pneumatics Pvt Ltd, the assessee, demanded duty on solenoid valves and parts of these valves manufactured by it, on the ground that they bore upon them the name of "Advance System Controls" which was a brand name within the meaning of the explanation to notification 1/93.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of inter alia solenoid valves and solenoid coil for spares. We are concerned in this appeal with clearances of such goods alleged to have the brand name "Advance System Control" manufactured and cleared by the appellant between December 1993 to October 1998. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that the goods were classifiable in sub heading 8481.10 of the tariff for use in refrigerating or air conditioning appliances and machinery and therefore not entitled to the exemption contained in notification 1/93.The assessee replied to the notice contending that the valves were not for use in r...

Cc (import) Vs. Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal at the instance of Revenue challenging order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.5.98. The issue to be considered in this case is one regarding the date with reference to 7 which rate of duty is to be decided.2. The respondent imported 200 bags of Glucona Delta Lactone F 5010 under Bill of Entry No. 10408 dated 31.10.95 and warehoused the same under Bond dated 6.12.95. The period of the bond expired on 5.12.96.The respondent failed to ex-bond the goods during the validity period and requested for clearance of the goods on 8.10.97. He sought to pay the interest and duty as applicable on the date of clearance.Department took the view that rate of duty shall be applicable as on the date of expiry of bond period. The adjudicating authority took the view that the importer had unauthorisedly kept the goods in the warehouse and that the expiry of bond is to be taken as the date of deemed removal of the goods. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme C...

Mamta Fashions, Mamta Choudhary, Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT548Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts leading to the filing of the present applications are that against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, holding 750 packages containing cotton knitled T-shirts liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act and imposing of a fine of Rs.15 lakhs due to non-availability of the goods due to their provisional release and imposing penalties of different amounts upon the applicants, appeals and stay applications were preferred to the Tribunal. Vide order No. C-III/1038 to 1043/WZB/2003 dated 26.6.2003, the Tribunal directed pre-deposit of 50% of the penalties imposed on all the applicants except Smt. Mamta Choudhary, proprietress of M/s.Mamta. Fashions. The applicants moved the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay which, by its order dated 8.9.2003 in Writ Petition No.2057 of 2003, set aside the order directing pre-deposit and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. This is how the applicat...

Dhairyashil Kapse Patil Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT381Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed before him for failure to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs out of the penalty of Rs. 2.19 lakhs imposed on the appellant.2. The notice issued to the appellant alleged that he has not applied for registration as a tour operator and otherwise not complied with the provisions of the Service Tax Act, 1994 which are applicable to tour operation, and therefore proposed penalty. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and imposed a penalty.3. The stay application filed along with the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been dismissed.4. The contention in the stay application is that the appellant only books seats on tours conducted by other tour operator. He does not have any tourist permit and not registered under the Motor Vehicles Act; he does not own any vehicle; therefore, he is not a tour operator; therefore not liable for regist...

industrial Minerals and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the copper sulphate that the appellant manufactures and clears. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Asst. Commissioner that the product is classifiable in heading 2833.00 of the tariff as an inorganic chemical not as claimed by the appellant as an insecticide in heading 3808.10.2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Saraf, the partner of the appellant and the departmental representative.3. Heading 3808.10 covers goods which are genetically pesticides specifying the various categories such as, insecticide, rondenticide, fungicides etc. "put up in forms or packing for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles and fly papers." This heading and heading 2833 are both reproduction of heading in the Harmonised System of Nomenclature.Explanatory notes to 3808 explains that the products are to be classified in heading 38....

Brij Lal Goyal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)88ITD413(Mum.)

1. In these appeals, common issue of imposition of penalty under Section 27 IB for failure of the assessee to get its accounts audited as required under Section 44AB of the Act, which stands confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is in dispute. For the sake of convenience, all the three appeals are disposed of by a common order.2. The main order confirming the penalty of Rs. 31,825 in the case of Shri Brij Lal Goyal is for assessment year 1995-96. The other order for assessment year 1993-94 confirming penalty of Rs. 27,890 is in the case of the same assessee and the third order confirming penalty of Rs. 36,837 in the case of Shri I.S. Goyal for assessment year 1995-96 which are both on identical facts and circumstances wherein the ld. CIT(A) followed his decision of assessment year 1995-96 given in the case of Shri Brij Lal Goyal.3. Both the assessees were searched on 4-10-1994 by an action under Section 132 of the Act. The assessee was maintaining books of account in the regular course of busi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Borsad Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT352Tri(Mum.)bai

This is an appeal at the instance of Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-8-98.2. The issue involved in this case relates to classification of Shaheen Misri and Kokan Misri manufactured by the appellants. While the department classified the product under 2401.90, the appellant claims that it has to be classified under 2404.90.3. The product is manufactured by heating tobacco dust and rawa to remove moisture content and then salt is added to it. Thereafter a process of roasting and grinding are carried out. Commissioner (Appeals) followed an order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay classifying similar products under Heading 2404.90.4. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the tobacco dust which is used in the product is only unmanufactured tobacco and it should come within 2401.90. We do not find any merit in this contention.Tariff Entry 24.04 relates to other manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitute, homogenised and r...

PravIn Metal Works and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery arise out of the order of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, who has confirmed a demand of Rs. 24,05,338/- on M/s. Pravin Metal Works by clubbing the clearances of M/s. Pankaj Autojalgaon, M/s. Yogesh Auto, Jalgaon and M/s. Sarang Auto, Jalgaon who have been held to be dummy units created by M/s. Pravin Metal Works to show the clearances value below the exemption limit during the financial year, resulting in denial of benefit of SSI Notification, imposing penalty of amount equal to duty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, upon the company and imposing penalties of the following amounts on the following persons: 2. We have heard Shri Doiphode, advocate for the applicants and Shri Shukla, SDR for the Revenue. The issue in dispute as to whether M/s.Pankaj Auto, M/s. Yogesh Auto and M/s. Sarang Autojalgaon were dummy units, who...