Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

P and O Nedlloyed (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT489Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are agents of P & O Nedlloyed Ltd., U.K and under slot arrangement with vessels agents M/s. Tata NYK Ltd., manifested cargo show uppers in container KNLU 3086251. Their principals have computerized system and due to computer problem one Bill of Lading out of two Bill of Ladings for the same consignee for same goods in the same container i.e. shoe uppers was not manifested.2. On an application made for additional entry on 25-5-98 on complaint received from clearing agent finding it difficult to note his Bill of Entry, the Customs Authority considered this to be a deliberate act of contravention of Section 111(f) and 111(g) ordered the confiscation of the container with a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. Tata NYK Ltd. Hence this appeal by the appellants.M/s. Tata NYK are not in appeal.3. After hearing both sides and considering the material, it is found :- (a) Since the container as per its number was manifested with one Bill of Ladin...

Anguribai Babulal Patodi, Proprietor Mahendra Wastra Bhandar Vs. Unite ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR555

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 7.1.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 71 of 1991 absolving the respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. from the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the insured did not comply with the provisions of Section 103A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (for short the Act).2. Brief facts are as under :Smt. Shakuntalabai died in an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle on 10.11.1989 at 7.30 a.m. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are the legal representatives of deceased Shakuntala and they filed the Claim Petition on the ground that deceased Shakuntalabai was standing at a distance of 5 to 6 feet away from the tar road. I One Ambassador car bearing No. MOR 269 owned by the appellant came from Saoner side and gave dash to Shakuntalabai. It is contended that the oar was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 2. The car involved in ...

Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Cce and C

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(113)LC780Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility for consideration as capital goods under Rule 57Q of goods described as return bagasse carrier slats. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Additional Collector in the order impugned before him that since the goods are material handling equipment they could not be considered to be capital goods since they did not conform to the definition contained in Rule 57Q that they must be used to produce or process any goods or bring about any change in any substance in the manufacture of the final product.2. By application of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Jawahar Mills , the goods must be considered to be capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside....

Gulf Airways and Air India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On 13/01/1992 on the basis of specific information the officers of Air Intelligence Unit intercepted a consignment of transshipment cargo which arrived from Sharjah by a Gulf Air flight under airway bill describing the goods as "Forged Carbon Steel blind Flange" in the name of State Bank of India, Bangalore, notify Intech Engineering, Bangalore. Preliminary investigations with the State Bank revealed that they had never dealt with the consignee shown on the airway bill which was a small workshop engaged in the production of steel hoses, and lathe machines; one Veer Bhadra Rao was the owner of the said company and he said that he had nothing to with the consignment and the company had never imported any goods. Thereafter the consignment was cut open and examined, and 1832 gold bars of 10 tolas each bering foreign marking, totally weighing 213.72 kgs, wa found concealed in it. The gold was seized under a reasonable belief that it had ben smuggled into India and hence liable to confis...

Shivrati Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC405

1. Appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Texturised Filament Yarn, Dyed Yarn and Twisted Yarn. Pursuant to a search warrant, officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises on 24/01/2003 and they seized certain stocks, since the stock position as the statutory records could not be ascertained as the key and the key holder of the factory premises were said to be kept was not available.The entire goods including raw materials, finished goods as available in the factory were put under seizure vide panchanama dated 24/25-01-2003. Subsequent to these operations a further stock of 43 cartons of texturisd yam manufactured out of the yarn pertaining to work in progress was also seized under panchanama dated 06/02/2003.2. The same goods were once again seized on 16/07/2003 under panchanama dated 16/07/2003. Since the department did not accept the application made for provisional or unconditional release of the goods since they were declared perishable goods under Sectio...

Bhor Rubber Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 21.68 lakhs and penalty of equivalent amount.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant cleared without payment of duty quantities of red rubber manufactured by it during the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.3.2000.3. The representative of the applicant raised the following contentions. The applicant was clearing its goods on payment of duty till 1.4.2000. From that date onwards it availed of the exemption contained in notification 47/2000 on the basis of the value of the clearance. The claim that there is a discrepancy between the stated date of visit of the officer to the applicant's factory on 16.10.2000 and 18.10.2000 on which the applicant's manager is stated to have furnished some documents. No panchnama has been drawn in the factory on the date of visit. The only basis for the claim is the statements of customers of the applicant stating that they received goods wit...

Dharnendra Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT435Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Ice creams falling under Chapter 21.05 of the Schedule to the C.E.T.A. 1985. They filed price lists with effect from 10.3.94 and on scrutiny of the same it was found that the appellants' company had entered into an agreement with M/s. Dharnendra Marketing Co. for marketing and distribution of products manufactured by them. M/s. Dharnendra Marketing Co. was a partnership firm with one partner being the appellants company owning major portion (75%) of shares in the company and the other partners included the wife of the Director of the appellants company and the third partner was M/s. Fly Up Fashions Ltd. The sale of ice creams through the Marketing company was found to be sale through related person and the price declared in the price list was much less than the price charged by the related person. Therefore, 9 show cause notices covering the period from March, 1994 to June, 1996, raising total differential duty of Rs 1,05,05,0...

Devika Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT75Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue pertains to valuation of imported goods. The appellants imported two consignments of Plain Medium Density Fibre Board (PMDFB) and sought clearance under two Bills of Entry declaring a value of 140 US $/CBM. The consignments arrived from Hamburg to Nava Sheva (Mumbai) but were invoiced by a trader in UAE on whom the appellants placed the order. The declared value was rejected by the original authority. He determined the value to be US 180 per CBM as against the declared value of US 140. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority.2. It was argued by the ld. Advocate that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is non-speaking; the manufacturer's invoice produced by them should have been accepted; comparison of different types of goods for the purpose of determining the value is incorrect; the lower authority ignored the fact that the price in their case is negotiated; the transaction value under Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules has been rejected on the sol...

Sheen Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT332Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,28,035.43 with interest under Section 11AB and imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11 AC against the appellants on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 287/86-CE dated 5/5/1986, claimed by them for 'Speciality Oil' manufactured by compounding mineral oil with other substances, for the reason that the mineral oil was not duty paid as required in terms of the proviso to Notification and the extended period of limitation has been made applicable.2. We have heard both sides. The appellants' claim that since duty paid High Flash High Speed Diesel Oil (HFHSD) received by them but not used for the manufacture of Speciality Oil by conversion into mineral oil by distillation process, the mineral oil is to be treated as duty paid, thus Satisfying condition of the proviso to Notification, cannot be acceded to as the equirement of the Notification is that mineral oil...

Modernova Plastyles P. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. who manufactured on job work for Mire Electronics Ltd. cabinets for television sets by using moulds owned and supplied by the latter, could take credit under 57Q of the duty paid on these moulds by their manufacturer. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has found such credit to be impermissible on the ground that the manufacturer was not the owner of the goods, demanded the credit so taken and imposed penalty on the manufacturer and Mirc Electronics under Rule 209A for abetting taking wrong credit. He also ordered confiscation of the moulds.3. Credit was taken on various dates in June 1997 and January 1999. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the rules as it stood during this period do not mandate as it did prior to its amendment on 17.6.1994 that ownership of capital goods as a criteria for taking credit. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal inGerman ...