Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT246Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of about 31 days in filing of this appeal.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the lower order confirming demand of Rs. 4,77,384.75 and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee.3. Against this order the jurisdictional Commissioner filed a revision application in terms of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The Joint Secretary disposed of the application holding that the issues involved in the appeal order did not pertain to the jurisdiction of the Government of India and that the appeal would lie before the CEGAT. The Commissioner then filed this appeal and the application for condonation. The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that it was "a bona fide belief that a revision application was maintainable in the matter".4. I have seen the preamble to the appeal order, which refers to Section 35E and also to Section 35EE and very clearly states as to the circumstances in which alone an application would relay ...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Vadilal Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai

1. During July, 93 to December, 93, the respondent took Modvat credit on inputs received on the strength of subsidiary certificate.Physical inputs were received prior to the date of certificate, but credit was taken in each case, after the certificate was received.After issue of show cause notices, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the demand but imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee. On an application by the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower order. Present appeal from the revenue challenges this order.2. The ground of appeal was that the application for certificate was made after receipt of the inputs and, therefore, the assessee had not followed the instructions of the Board circular governing the issue of subsidiary certificates. I have seen the circular. In terms of the circular the Range Superintendent is bound to issue a subsidiary gate pass within twenty-four hours of receipt of the application. In the case of default by the Superintendent, the...

Coats of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants who are manufacturers of excisable goods classifiable under Chapter 32, 38 and 39 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of the Cental Excise (Appeals) upholding the Assistant Commissioner's order whereby he denied credit of Rs. 13,931/- on inputs used in the manufacture of catalysts and retarders/accessories on the ground that the final products were properly declared in the declaration filed in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. On hearing both sides and perusing the records I find that this is not a case of non-declaration of final products but declaration of wrong classification which has also been explained by the appellants as due to error, and which has been corrected by showing the correct classification under Chapter heading 3815.00 in the classification list filed on 01/03/1993. Since the final products of the appellants have been shown correctly and it is only the Chapter heading under the Tarif...

Miraj Electrical and Mechanical Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who has dismissed the appeal filed before him against the adjudication order of the Assistant Commissioner, on the ground of non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants have deposited the duty amount and the penalty, therefore I proceed to hear the appeal itself on merits.2. The appellants exported under bond welding machines vide certain invoices and AR-4s. The department issued a show cause notice on the ground that excisable goods were cleared by the appellants without debiting the basic duty amount and without filing proof of export in the form of copies of the AR-4s. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the excise duty demand of Rs. 23,050/- under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of the entire duty and penalty and on failure of...

Pukhraj Nihalchand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT715Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On 10th March, 1996 the Appellant Pukhraj Nihalchand Jain was apprehended by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the act of placing of some packages in the dickey of a scooter. The Panchnama revealed that the packages contained foreign exchange equal to Indian Rupees 42,85,095/-. His statements were recorded on 10-3-96 and 11-3-96. He deposed, that he had purchased foreign marked gold biscuits on 9-3-96 from one Rajesh and that he owned a sum of Rs. 1.8 crores as payment therefor. He had already paid Rs. 1.3 crores in the morning and was possession of the remainder currency when he was intercepted. 2 Telephone numbers were given by him on which he would contact Rajesh. The numbers belonged to some shops where the persons did not know the person called Rajesh. The scooter was found registered in the name of one Mohamed Hanif Qureshi who was also not found. The scooter was claimed to have been purchased by the Appellant through one Mukesh who was also not...

Commissioner of State Excise and Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Retail Liquor De ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR799; 2003(5)BomCR185

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mrs. Veena Thadani, Mr. Mohan Pungaliya, Mr. J.F. Pochkhanwala, and Mr. A.K. Abhyankar, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice of rule on behalf of original petitioners in all Applications. In the facts and circumstances, we have taken tall these Civil Applications/Notice of Motion for hearing.2. These Civil Applications and Notice of Motion have been filed for vacating interim order passed by this Court on April 4, 2002 in the writ petitions.3. To appreciate the contentions raised by the Special Counsel for the Applicants, it may be necessary to state that petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2012 of 2002 (Maharashtra Retail Liquor Dealers Association) and several other petitioners, approached this Court by filing substantive petitioners. The case of the petitioners was that in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Periodicity and fees for grant, renewal or continuance of Licence) Rule...

District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Heminath Balbhim ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR537; 2003(5)BomCR841

1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent. Perused the records.2. The Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated July 17, 1997 passed by the trial court answering in affirmative the issue of jurisdiction while answering the negative the issue of necessity of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act').3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the Respondent herein filed Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1998 claiming various reliefs for recovery of damages as well as arrears of wages, etc. Undisputedly, the Respondent was employee of the Petitioner-bank and his services were terminated on the ground of misconduct arising from alleged misappropriation of the funds of the bank. The Petitioner-bank had lodged a criminal complaint with the police station at Pandnarpur. Pursuant to the same, investigation was carried out and the matter was referred to the Judicial Magistr...

Nazareth Metals Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit duty of Rs. 4,14,397/- and penalty of rs. 40,000/-, I found that it is possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage; hence, after granting the prayer for waiver, I proceed to hear both sides and dispose of the appeal.2. Modvat credit of Rs. 4,14,397/- has been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that on the 2 Bills of Entry in question viz.B/E No. 1440447 dtd. 19.3.2001 and B/E No. 1500565 dtd. 4.4.01, the address of the importer is that of the registered premises of the manufacturer and the second address is that of the godown of the dealer. In other words, the credit had been denied on the ground that the importer is different from the manufacturer who availed modvat credit and utilised.3. I have heard both sides and have satisfied myself that the appellant before me viz. Nazareth Metals is the importer and the manufacturer who has utilised the inputs in the manufacturer of its fi...

Sir Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 5.16 lakhs and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act of Rs. 50,000/-.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has demanded the duty on the medical equipment imported by the applicant by claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 64/88, on the ground that the conditions subject to which the exemption is granted, relating to specified number of pre-treatment of inpatients and outpatients, have not been complied with.3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the notice issued to it did not demand payment of duty and therefore there is no basis of the duty.He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Forgings v.UOI 2002 (146) ELT 241 in respect of the proposition that a notice must specifically mention the amount of duty demanded, and the basis for the demand. He however brings to our notice an order passed by a bench of court III in Mumbai of this Tribunal in which in respect o...

Surat Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Surat Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of carbonated beverages. These beverages are filled in bottles in which they are sold to customers. By its letter dated 28^th April 1995, it informed the jurisdictional Superintendent of fresh assessable value for its goods of 24 or 15 bottles. To this letter, it enclosed a break-up of the price. The break-up indicated bottle case hiring charge Rs. 5/- per case which has formed part of the assessable value. In arriving at the assessable value, a deduction of equalised recovery of glass bottles of Rs. 2.50 was claimed in respect of the goods which were sold to the dealers, packed in bottles. The notice issued to the assessee proposed to deny the deduction of Rs. 2.50 on the ground that since this amount was being recovered from its dealers, it was consideration for the price of the goods and therefore ought to form part of the assessable value. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders denying the deduction and t...