Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Faze Three Exports Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Trading Co. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR685; 2004(2)ARBLR163(Bom); 2004(2)BomCR522; 2004(2)MhLj196

D.G. Karnik, J.P.C.1. Admit. Mr. S. P. Kanuga appears for respondent No. 1 and waives service. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are arbitrators and are formal parties. Notice to them is dispensed with. By consent, taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner takes exception to the award dated 14th August, 2002 passed against the petitioners.3. Disputes having arisen between the parties. They were referred to arbitration by an arbitral tribunal of three arbitrators appointed by Hindusthan Chamber of Commerce. The first award passed on 24th January, 2002 was challenged before this Court by the petitioner by filing Arbitration Petition No. 236 of 2002 on several grounds, including that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. By an order dated 1st August 2002, this Court allowed the petitioner's application and set aside the award and remitted the proceedings back to the arbitral tribunal for passing fresh orders after hea...

Errol Robert Lucien Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR42

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition by the husband of the detenu seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 1lth February, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, Detaining Authority under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.O.F.E.P.O.S.A.'). The petition is opposed by filing affidavit in reply of the 2nd respondent, Detaining Authority and the Deputy Secretary of the 1st respondent, State of Maharashtra and thereafter affidavit of Asst. Director of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai. The respondents have also tendered a paper book containing the various papers concerning the action, which were tendered to the Detaining Authority leading to the detention order. Mrs. Ansari has appeared for the petitioner whereas Mrs. Pai, A.P.P., has appeared for the respondents.2. The short facts leading to the detention order are as follows : The detenu arrived at the International Airpor...

Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 49,84,216/-and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik. The demand consists of two parts ; (i) demand of Rs. 46,35,119/- confirmed by calculating the duty liability on the applicant who is 100% EOU set up for manufacture of measuring instruments in respect of clearance made to DTA with the prior permission of the Development Commissioner on the basis of 50% of the aggregate duties of customs in terms of Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 2/95 dated 4/1/95 as amended vide CBEC Circular No. 7/2001-Cus dated 6.2.2001; and (ii) for demand of Rs. 3,49,097/-confirmed on multimeters and transducers etc.cleared to DTA without permission from the Development Commissioners ( Development Commissioner's permission was only for sale of panel meters and spares for panel meters.).2. We have heard both sides. The contention of the applicants that they ...

Emi Transmission Ltd. and S.K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed on the assessee of Rs. 1.48 crores approx and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on Sadanand Shetty, its general manager.2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and clearance of goods described as "hardware and accessories for transmission lines." It filed classification lists in June and July 2001 claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 108/95. This notification exempts from duty goods supplied to internationally funded projects and is subject to inter alia to certification regarding the eligibility of the project by the principal officer of the project countersigned by concerned secretary of the Government, in the case of project undertaken by a state government. Certificates signed by the chief engineer of the concerned project and countersigned by the finance secretary in one case and Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh in another case were also enclosed.3. Notice was...

Sumilon Tex Pvt. Ltd., Riddhi Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of three separate adjudication orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat involving a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of metallic yam (Zari) falling under CETA sub-heading 5605.00. They filed declarations under Rule 174 read with Notification 11/92 dated 14/05/1992 claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification 76/86-CE dated 10/02/1986 from time to time.The manufacturing process of metallic yarn is that the metallised and metallised lacquered polyester film is slitted in the form of thread on micro slitting machine and then wound on bobbins. The notification in question was available for goods such as handicrafts, etc. Since the process of manufacturing of metallic yarn was not by hand but with the help of machinery (power operated) the department was of the view that the notification did not co...

Ally Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT340Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of toys and florescent tube.After their examination the goods were subjected to adjudication on the ground that they were consumer goods import of which required a licence which has not been produced. After hearing the importer, who waived the issue of written notice, the Additional Commissioner passed orders ordering confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 35,000 under Section 112.2. Subsequent to the passing of the order before the clearance of the goods the officers of the Directorate of Revenue intelligence acting on information once again examined the consignment this time finding in it 100 cartons containing 50 dozens of nail cutters each. Notice was issued to the importer proposing confiscation of these goods under Clauses (d) and (m) of the nail cutters and confiscation of the remaining goods under 119 of the Act ha...

Muneshwar Prasad, Shah Steel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT742Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issues involved in these appeals are commons same are been disposed off by this order. Appellants in the appeal No. E/2422/02 is the manufacturer who during the period 1995-96 availed modvat credit on invoices sharing description of goods as coils. The credit was taken for the declared final products automobile components while sheets were admittedly received. The manufacturer has no facility to cut uncoil and/or to split the coil after such uncoiling. They place orders on various dealers, 12 in all, some of them are the other appellants herein. They placed orders for coils or coils cut to size that go to various uncoiler's/cutter's premises straight from the dealers. At the premises the slitters, coils are slit into sizes as specified by the manufacturer or as shown in the orders placed.2. a) Rule 57J permitted such removal and availment of credit; but the said procedures thereunder was allegedly not followed. The credit of Rs. 8,13,331.95 and penalty under Rule 571 was impose...

Laxmilal Chunilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (P) Mumbai. In the impugned order the Commissioner amongst other things confiscated Rs. 8 lakhs worth of Indian Currency and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the present appellant. Hence this appeal.2. The facts are that the officers of customs searched the premises Room No. 2, 35 Mint Road, Fort on 18.1.91 which was occupied by Suresh Pukhraj Jain and Kishanlal Chaganlal Jain. Some 40 US $ recovered.While the search was going on Raj Babu Sahani entered the premises and tried to handover US $ 104 to Suresh Jain. This currency was also recovered. The officers also observed that one more person, T.P.S.Mohmed, suspiciously moving around the said premises under search.Interrogation of the said person revealed that he had given 10060 US $ to Suresh Pukhraj Jain for converting them into Indian currency. This currency was also recovered by the officers from the same premises. All the said currencies were seized on the gr...

Su-raj Diamonds (India) Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT427Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mumbai, dated 23.4.2002. The facts are that one M/s. Su-Raj Diamonds (India) Ltd., manufacturer of jewellery in SEEPZ, presented shipping bill No. 1710 dated 4.5.1999 for re-export of 667.38 cts. Of cut and polished diamonds valued at Rs. 1,27,34,462/-. The details of the consignment as given in the invoice accompanying the shipping bill are given below:- 2. The unit has also declared in the said invoice that they had imported 952.64 cts. of cut and polished diamonds vide Bill of Entry No. 1.32 dated 18.4.1996 out of which they had exported 548.44 cts.leaving a balance of 404.20 cts. valued at US$ 2,02,100.00. Similarly in respect of the other Bill of Entry No. 2005 dated 27.2.1996, they had declared that out of the total quantity of 667.82 cts. imported, they had exported 404.64 cts leaving a balance of 263.18 cts. valued at US$ 96.060.70. Thus in the said shipping bill, the unit had claimed that out of ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. A.R. Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT236Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal by the Commissioner is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). By that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the liability to confiscation of the marbles imported by the respondent but reduced the fine for redemption from Rs. 9.10 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs. The appeal challenges this reduction.2. Counsel for the respondent brings to our notice that by order passed on 7-10-1998, the Tribunal deciding the appeal C/184/98 of the importer, A.R. Enterprises against the same order had set aside the order of the Commissioner and therefore the order impugned in this appeal does not survive.3. The departmental representative contends that the Tribunal should have heard both the appeals together, as the department's appeal had been filed on 8-5-1998 after the Tribunal heard the importer's appeal before it and therefore the Tribunal's order ought to be recalled and both appeals heard together. We are unable to agree. The principle that he advances that where appeals ...