Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Dgp Windsor India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)STR86

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of service tax of Rs. 9,67,434 and penalty of Rs. 14 lakhs.2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of injection moulding machine. The demand follows the finding of the Asst. Commissioner [confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)] that its acts of repairing after warranty period machine that it supplied at the premises of the buyers amounted to taxable service provided by the consultant engineer and therefore liable to service tax. The contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant did not provide the service of a consulting engineer but merely carried out the repairs on the machine that it sold. Such repair was not a taxable service during the relevant period from July, 1997 to September, 2001 being includible as tax from 1-7-2003. He relies upon the Circular No. B-47/5/97-TRU, dated 2-7-1997 of the Board. He says that Paragraph 3.3 of the circular which specifies a service that a consulting engineer or consulting en...

Nipa Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC102

1. The officers of the department found in the factory of the appellant chemicals of foreign origin. The appellant could not explain satisfactorily from where he had purchased the goods, saying that they were purchased from a broker against cash payment for which it has received no bill. The officers therefore seized the chemicals on the view that they were smuggled. Notice issued to it proposing recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Act, confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 and penalty on the appellant. The Joint Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), demanded duty, ordered confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 with an option to redeem them on payment of fine and imposed a penalty on the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. The counsel for the appellant contends as follows. The provision of Section 28 of the Act cannot be invoked against a purchased of the goods subsequent to clearance from the Cust...

Sakhari Alias Shakuntala Mundala Nayak Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj952

J.N. Patel, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 27-7-1999 passed by the Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, under which the appellant has been found guilty of having committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months.2. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that the appellant Sakhari @ Shakuntala Mundala Nayak was running a brothel house in Chandani bldg., at 1018, Budhwar Peth, Pune. The deceased Sunita Yallappa Dhotre was initially working as a sex worker with her in the name of Shantabai. It is the prosecution case that the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,000/- from the appellant-accused about six months before the incident. After borrowing the amount, the deceased left the brothel house of the appellant-accused and disappeared. Therefore, the appellant-accused was in search of her and...

Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application by Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd and application by Shri Dnyaneshwar SSK Ltd are for waiver respectively of deposit of penalty of Rs. 16.50 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh. In terms of an undertaking given by the first applicant, the second applicant cleared 1900 tonnes of sugar from its factory in June 2001 without payment of duty. The first applicant was to export the sugar in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2001. The record indicate that although a shipping bill was filed at Amritsar for export of the sugar to a consignee at Islamabad in Pakistan, the consignment could not be exported because of some problems in regard to movement of railway waggons between the two countries. Therefore, the prospective buyer cancelled the contract in October 2001. The first applicant thereupon, after taking permission (contained in the letter dated 1.11.2001 of the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory at Aurangabad) paid duty on the goods on 7.11.2001. The order...

Kapadia Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT349Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Notice issued to the appellant proposed to demand duty on the textured yarn manufactured by it on the ground that its correct value had not been shown in the central excise invoice. The basis for the notice was the discovery in the appellant's factory are two sets of invoices, showing different price for each clearance. The last paragraph of the notice indicated that documents relied upon in it, listed in the annexure to it "wherever not earlier supplied are either enclosed or would be made available for inspection on demand being made in writing." By letter dated 21.2.2002, the appellant asked the Joint Commissioner for copies of some of the documents and also requested some documents very very voluminous and therefore rather than inspecting them, it may be given copies. It is contended that there was no reply to this letter. The Additional Commissioner has passed orders in November 2001 confirmi...

Shri Amrutbhai Dhudhabhai Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT390Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and his Jeep Taxi No. GRW 7181 has been confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Brief facts which led to the liabilities under the Customs Act, 1962 relevant for this appellant are - i) Deesa Rural Police intercepted five persons on 26.08.1992 travelling as passengers in Taxi No. GRW 7181 and recovered foreign marked gold, 172 biscuits in all, from their luggage and seized them under Cr. PC along with the Taxi and arrested the passengers under Section 41(1) of Cr.PC. On informing the Customs Department, the department placed the said gold under seizure on 06.08.1992 in the reasonable belief that the same was of smuggled nature and liable for confiscation. ii) The statements recorded reveal that the passengers were having the gold biscuits in their suitcase when they were intercepted in the said jeep from ...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT69Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the tires imported by the appellant is entitled to fitment to the scooters manufactured by it could be imported without a licence. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmd the finding of the Deputy Collector that these tyres were consumer goods and therefore, as provided in paragraph 156A of the import policy, could not have been imported without a licence and are therefore liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act.2. The counsel for the appellant does not deny on the basis of the decisions of this Tribunal that tyres are to be regarded as consumer goods. He says that paragraph 156A permitted import of consumer goods under a licence or against the public notice issued in that regard. The public notice 32 (PN)92-97 dated 17.7.1992 issued by the Chief Control of Imports and Exports permitted import Of accessories, components, parts and spares of consumer durables, exce...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. R.P. Gangwal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT391Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared for the respondents. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R.for the department states that in this case imported goods were seized and the purchase documents produced by the respondents were found to be fake. He, therefore, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly decided that the impugned goods were not liable for confiscation. He also cites the following case laws in support of his argument :-Kamal Jit Singh Chadha & Two Others v. Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay 2. In view of the fact that the documents produced by the respondents have been found to be not genuine, the department has succeeded in proving that the impugned goods in question have not been licitly acquired. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in setting aside the order of confiscation.3. Consequently, the impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and order-in-original is restored....

Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for rectification of mistakes allegedly present in the order of the Tribunal. The Applicants other than Bhikkamal Chhotelal, J.M. Industries and Gaziabad Ship Breakers Ltd are absent and unrepresented. They have submitted written submissions. These have been considered. We have heard the counsel for the other applicants.2. The first contention, that there was an error by the Tribunal in considering the definition of the "ship stores" contained in Section 2 (28) of the Customs act, 1962 is not acceptable. No doubt, the issue before the Tribunal was the eligibility to modvat credit of the duty paid on petrol oil and other such goods onboard on ship. The Tribunal referred to these provisions in the light of the clarification given by the World Customs Organisation referred to in the order to determine whether the goods were a part of a ship.3. Decisions are now sought to be sited on other aspects of the matter.There is no explanation why these decisions not cited ...

Sunny Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT420Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Sunny enterprises, the respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner, imported resins of Chinese origin at a declared price of US$ 1496 cif per ton of the value. The Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the value was too low and after considering the cause shown by the importer, since he found that quotation offer dated 16.3.1998 of Capital Glass International Ltd, Himgiang indicated the price of $2560 per ton of such resins and there was a practice in Mumbai Custom House enhancing the value of $1730 per ton. He therefore was of the view that there was reasonable doubt justifying recourse to the determination of Rule 10(a) of the Valuation Rules. He therefore determined the price at $ 2300 per ton based upon the reported market price of the goods of $ 250 per kg and allowing various deductions on accounty of profit, expenses etc.2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) relies upon quotation and offer of the Additional Commissioner was misplaced and tha...