Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Cce Vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC683Tri(Mum.)bai

The product 'Target Aluminium' is in excluded category of inputs as the same is not used as component parts in the manufacture of CD in view of explanation to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A in view of explanation to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rule 1944, as applicable during the relevant period... a) The appeal admits the position that the said input is used in the machinery for manufacture of Compact Discs (CDs), to deposit Aluminimum layer on recorded CD's of plastic to bring the smoothness and to avoid scratches. How any way why this should not be considered, as use in the the manufacture of CD's is not explained nor any technical literature relied. b) On the contrary the Respondents have produced extracts from the Technical Manual (3rd Edition 1994) of Balzers (the manufacturer of metalizers in which the subject target is inserted.) This deals with coating Technology and Sputterning of Metals. 'Sputter' as per the concise Oxford Dictionary 10th editions defines the word a...

Engineering Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT282Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The claim of the appellants herein for DEPB credit on goods described by them in the Shipping Bills for export as fibre tip pens has been rejected by the authorities below, holding that the goods were not writing instruments covered under Sr. No. 1/63 of the DEPB which covers inter alia "all kinds of metallic/non-metallic writing instruments...." 2. We have heard both sides. The catalogue submitted by the appellants showed that the goods under export were marking systems for recorders and plotters. This is not disputed. The claim of the appellants is that the product is writing instrument irrespective of its use as parts of Marking Systems for Recorders and Spares for Process Control Instruments. We find that the goods can not be used by themselves and can be used only after being attached to some equipments, and their use is in refineries, fertilizer plants for keeping track of various process, temperature, flow, etc. In other words, they are not capable for use of human beings fo...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Haidery Tins

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent to this appeal imported in October-November 1997 quantity of tin plate waste waste from a supplier from Australia declaring their FOB value to be Australian $ 400 per ton. The department was of the view that the value was too low, having regard to the fact that at or about this period, the importer imported tin plate waste waste from Norway and France at higher price equivalent ranging from US$ 380 pr ton C &I. The importer having waived the 2issue of written notice was heard by the Assistant Commissioner and passed orders enhancing the value of the goods to US$ 400 per ton in respect of some bills of entry and US$ 450 per ton in respect of some other bills of entry.2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals), on his view that the goods under consideration had been wrongly compared the goods which were neither similar nor identical and noting the existence of other goods at the value claimed by the importer, accepted this value, allowing the i...

Shivom Ply-n-wood Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT1150Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad dated 31.3.2003. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,07,67,984/- from M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood Pvt. Ltd. under proviso to Section 11A; imposed penalty of Rs. 1,08,42,981/- under 11A2; Rs. 99,25,000/- under Rule 173 Q; demanded interest and imposed penalties under Rule 209A on Mrs. K.D.Wadhwa, director of M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood, D.L. Wadhwa, power of attorney holder of the same company, Shivshankar Plywood, Raju Karam Chandani, accountant of M/s Shivom Gulshan Gokhlani, assistant accountant, and K.V. Bhat, chartered accountant.2. The department's allegations are that M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood undervalued their goods; clandestinely removed excisable goods without payment of duty; wood veneer was cleared by undervaluing the same and without payment of duty. These allegations are based on the study of the balanc...

VipIn Enterprises and Shri Dinesh Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC140

1. The applicants seek waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed upon the importer and Rs. 2 lakhs upon its Managing Director.Penalties have been imposed for the reason that M/s. Vipin Enterprises under valued Zinc Ingots imported by them in December, 1998 - they declared unit price of US $ 510 PMT totaling Rs. 28,98,236.87 which has been rejected by the Commissioner who has loaded the value at Rs. 85,24,349/-. The enhanced value is arrived at on comparison with the price of import of, identical goods by M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Company.2. The contention of the applicants is that the goods described in the Bill of Entry filed by M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Co. were Electrolytic High grade Zinc while they imported was zinc ingots. It is their further contention that the purity of their goods is 99.97% while the purity of Electrolytic High Grade Zinc should not be less than 99.975% and this itself would show that what was imported by them was not electrolytic High Gra...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. T.C. Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility for importation without a licence of the goods imported by the appellant.They consist of plastic caps intended to be closures for bottles containing cosmetics. The Additional Commissioner was of the view that the caps were in unfinished form and were to be subjected further processing before using to be cap and were consumer goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) having allowed the appeal against this order, the matter is before us.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted that the goods in the form in which they were imported could not be used as lids or closures. They were in unfinished form and were required to be threaded before they could be put to use.3. The ground in the department's appeal is that the goods are being classified in heading 39235000.10 and the import policy prohibits import of these goods. The answer that the counsel for the respondent gives is that the goods are not caps and in fact not classifia...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Dhanlaxmi Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT325Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he has held that duty paid on antistatic oil used in the manufacture of textured yarn could be taken, as credit under Rule 57A.2. The sole ground in the appeal by the Commissioner is that since the assessment of antistatic oil at the relevant time on the basis of tariff value had not been shown that the cost of antistatic oil has been included in the value of the textured yarn and credit cannot be taken. The departmental representative reiterates this objection.3. The requirement that the cost of the input may not form part of the value of the final product is contained in Rule 57A only for packaging materials. This requirement is not present in respect of inputs other than packaging material. There is therefore no basis in law for the department's appeal....

Mamta Kulkarni Vs. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj179

J.G. Chitra, J.1. Heard Shri Vimadalal for the petitioner (original accused) in prosecution pending before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court Mumbai, bearing CC No. 49/S of 1995 and Shri Saste for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 representing the prosecution.2. The petitioner is assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by said Court by which it took cognizance of a complaint presented by respondent No. 3 Shri Shyamrao Shioram Kumble (original complainant) and issued the summons directing the present petitioner to appear before that Court for facing the prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, after taking cognizance of the said complaint so presented before it.3. The allegations made in the said complaint by Shyamrao Shioram Kumble can be enumerated as mentioned hereunder.4. He averred that on 22-2-1995, when he was near National College at Bandra, Mumbai, he saw one boy selling newspapers and film magazine style...

Anant Chunilal Kate Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Bom)93; [2004]267ITR482(Bom)

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. The Tribunal's order dt. 10th Jan., 2000 is challenged by the assessee under Section 260A of the ITAct, 1961.3. In brief, the facts giving rise to this tax appeal are as under:The appellant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of agricultural piece of land with one Pardeshi on 23rd Sept., 1979. Pardeshi was the lawful owner of the agricultural land. He agreed to sell the said land to the present appellant. The appellant was to convert this land into non-agriculture. The appellant paid Rs. 10,000 to said Pardeshi by way of earnest money and thereafter Rs. 40,000 were paid to Pardeshi. However, Pardeshi did not execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.4. There were in all 23 plots. Out of them, 17 plots were sold. The sale deeds were executed admittedly by Pardeshi. However, the present appellant retained the sale proceeds of Rs. 1,25,418 only. Thereafter, dispute arose in between the appellant and Pardeshi. Pardeshi served notice on the appell...

Bhikusa Yamuksa Kshatriya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Astt. Collector of Central Exc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR205; 2004(2)MhLj471

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records. The point which arises for consideration is whether the pendency of the proceedings in the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the criminal case instituted against the petitioners by the Department of Central Excise for the alleged offences under the provisions of the Central Excise Act would amount to pendency of prosecution for violation of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder, so as to be sufficient to deny benefit to the petitioners under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 by invoking the powers under Section 95(ii)(a) of the said Scheme2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners were prosecuted by the respondents for offences punishable under the various provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 in Criminal Case No. 143 of 1989, which was instituted on 26-9-1989. On account ...