Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Good Pack and K.K. Korgaonkar Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand and penalty imposed arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise who confirmed the lower authority's order. The lower authority demanded a duty of Rs. 1,99,44/- imposed equal amount of penalty on the company and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the authorized signatory of the appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The applicants are manufacturers of Printed Cartons falling under Chapter Sub-heading 4819.19 of CETA. They surrendered their Central Excise registration in 1998 claiming that their turn over is not likely to exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. Investigation by Central Excise officers seemed to have revealed that the appellant, are clearing goods in the name of M/s. Business Associates, a dummy unit created by them for the purpose availing of SSI exemption. It is alleged that M/s. Business Associates do not have any plant/machinery of their own, they use the cutting and printing mach...

Kolety Gum Industries 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. 1,08,92,557/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Valsad. The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that Guar Gum and Guar Dal Flour are manufactured by the applicants and fall for classification under CET subheading 1301.10 as the applicants used power in the process.2. We have heard Shri Hidayatullah, ld.Sr.Counsel for the applicants and Shri Hemant Kotikar, ld.SDR for the respondent. At the outset, we note that the applicants' claim for classification under Chapter 11 was the subject matter of the earlier stay order on a similar product, as seen from Order No. CI/2143-2144/WZB/2003 dated 24/9/03 in the case of Kraps Chem Pvt.Ltd. and other, wherein it was held that, prima facie, a case on merits of classification has not been made out and the Bench proceeded to hear and decide on the plea of limitation. Arguing that the entire demand before us is time b...

Standard Alkalies Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein imported goods assembled as DG sets paying duty at the appropriate rates. The rate of duly on fully assembled DG sets was less than that was leviable on parts thereof. The appellants took modvat credit of the CVD paid at the time of importation of such goods. Central Excise Authorities were of the view that the goods were DG sets in CKD condition and therefore duty at the rate applicable to DG sets should have been paid and modvat credit availed only to that extent. Show cause notice for the recovery of modvat credit allegedly availed in excess was issued; the notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who upheld the charge in the notice by disallowing modvat credit and ordered recovery of Rs. 88,27,297/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 12,79,213/- on the importer under Rule 57U read with Rule 173Q against inadmissible modvat credit availed during the period subsequent to 23.7.96 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the impo...

income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Ramaben Mehta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by revenue for assessment year 1986-87 is directed against the order of CIT(A) Mumbai dated 31.07.96.2. As none appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice through DR, we have heard the arguments of learned DR of revenue and also perused the records.3. The revenue has raised four grounds of appeal before the Tribunal.Grounds no. 3 and 4 are general. Grounds no.1 & 2 dispute the learned CIT (A)'s action in quashing assessment order holding the same as being untenable in law and in holding that the provisions of section 147, as amended by Direct Laws (amendment) Act, 1987 & 1989 were applicable to assessment years 1989-90 onwards. The learned DR of revenue has contended that the original assessment was made on 21.9.1987, that is prior to 01.04.1989. He has contended that the learned CIT(A) has quashed the re-assessment framed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 holding that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated u/s 147 as amended by the amendment ...

Wearon Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(163)ELT149(Bom)

ORDER1. The Petitioners have challenged the queries memo dated 6-2-1996 by which the Petitioners have been called upon to produce sealed samples of export garment which might have been retained at the time of export made by the original licence holder.2. Petitioners are admittedly transferee of the advance licence which has been validly transferred by the Licensing Authority in favour of the Petitioner Co. Once a licence has been validly transferred by the licensing authorities in favour of the Petitioners, it will not be open for the Customs Authorities to investigate into the genuineness of the licence granted or the exports made by the original licence holder.3. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that the licences have been obtained by making totally false statements and by producing forged and/or fabricated documents and, therefore, it is necessary to verify the genuineness of the grant of licence.4. The Petitioners as transferee of the advance licence have imported the goods....

Teksons Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(165)ELT17(Bom)

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the Advocate for the parties.2. The Petitioners challenge the order of less charge demand dated 13th April, 1988 and further communications in that regard dated 24th February, 1992 and 29th April, 1992, on the ground that the same are in violation of provisions of law, as well as of basic principles of natural justice and order being a non-speaking order,3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the Petitioners are manufacturers of radiators having their establishment at Thane. Petitioners had imported 25 packages of high pressure hydraulic synthetic rubber hoses from England and the Bill of Entry was filed for clearance of the goods on 22nd February, 1979 which were cleared on 7th March, 1979 and duty was levied on CIF value at Rs. 1,85,751.66. The second consignment was imported on 18th May, 1979 for which import duty was levied at Rs. 1,72,075.75 on 19th June, 1979 and goods were cleared after payment of duty on 5th July, 1979. The third import ...

Sadashiv S/O Vithoba Hatkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR813; 2004(1)MhLj744

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By this petition, the petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the State Government to entertain an appeal against an order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati.3. The petitioner filed a Complaint, under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati Division, Amravati, claiming that the respondent is disqualified and cannot continue to be a member of the Board of Director of Buldhana District Central Co-operative Bank and sought action against the respondent No. 3. By order dated 27th June, 2003, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati Division, Amravati, removed the respondent No. 3 from the Board of Directors of the said Bank.4. Against the said order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, the third respondent preferred an appeal under Section 152 of th...

G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC209

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods imported in September 1996 by the appellant described as synthetic flavouring essence qualify for clearance under the provisions of the open general licence or whether a specific import licence was required for their clearance. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that an import licence was required, and in the absence of it held the goods liable to confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of fine. He has also imposed penalty on the importer.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. The request for adjournment is made on the ground that the concerned official had retired from the company and time is required to locate papers. The matter has been adjourned twice before 9^thJuly and 31^st July on the same ground. It was the responsibility of the appellant to keep its papers ready to argue the matter when it came up for hearing, if, despite this, taking avail of the two opportuniti...

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT372Tri(Mum.)bai

2. We had passed an interim order on 28-10-2003 in the captioned appeals waiving pre-deposit of duties and penalties and granting stay of recovery thereof pending the appeals, without expressing any prima facie opinion on the merits of the demands. That order was passed in the appellants' stay application wherein they had inter alia prayed for a direction to restrain the department from taking physical possession of the factory. The prayer was made under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.3. Ld. Counsel submits that, by a letter dated 5-11-2003, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs has asked them to stop operations of the machinery confiscated under the impugned order within 10 am on 6-11-2003 "to enable the enforcement of the confiscation". A copy of this letter has been brought on record. We have carefully perused this letter, which indicates that confiscation of plant and machinery is being enforced "in terms of our order dated 28-10-200...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bright Insulated Wires

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are an unregistered small-scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of certain excisable goods specified under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28/02/1993. Some of these goods were cleared under a brand name belonging to another person not eligible for the benefit of the said notification. Other unbranded goods were cleared during the period of dispute (April to December, 1993) on payment of duty at tariff rate by availing the benefit of modvat credit on inputs. The department took a stand that such an unregistered SSI unit could not pay duty on their initial clearances in a given financial year up to the value of Rs. 30 lakhs on their own volition as such clearances were totally exempted from duty under the said notification. Accordingly they issued a show cause notice to the party which has ultimately culminated in the present proceedings.2. We have heard both sides. Learned DR, representing the Revenue in their appeal filed against the order of the Commission...