Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Mohammad GayasuddIn Son of Wali Mohammad Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1727; 2003CriLJ2994

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.2. The appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2002 against the order, dated 16/11/2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for grant of bail in view of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code/Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be dismissed. The appellant filed another Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2003 against the order, dated, 17/12/2002, whereby the applications made by the appellant below Exhs. 11, 12 and 5 came to be dismissed. Since both these orders deal with rejection of the bail application of the appellant, both these appeals were heard together and disposed of by the common order.3. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the appellant is a reputed businessman and also a trustee of a Medical Trust and was also given an aw...

Indian Airlines Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT275Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the dismissal of a claim for refund filed by the appellant.2. The appellant placed on 19-12-1986 an order No. BAB/86-87/810 on Airbus Industrie, Hamburg for supply of five items of sealing compound.Airbus Industrie in turn placed an order 8000540/170187/MK/KEI dated 21-1-1987 on Products Research and Chemicals Co., located in the United States. This company issued an invoice dated 24-1-1987 to Airbus Industrie, shipping the goods directly to the appellant in Bombay.Apparently the invoice was not received and only the consignment with a packing list was received. This packing list indicated the value of the sealing compound to be US $ 13,465.60 and the consignment was cleared on this value. Subsequently, the appellant filed a claim for refund on the ground that this value was wrong and that the correct value ought to be that shown in the invoice of US $ 420.80 consisting 32 tins at a unit price of US $ 13.15 fo...

Ccandce Vs. Clarity Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC453

1. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal of the Revenue is the correct classification of the following: The assessee is a manufacturer of PVC compound, rigid/flexible film etc. The above waste arise during manufacture of these items. About the nature of these waste products and the manufacturing process the impugned order has noted as under: P.V.C. Resin which forms almost 95% of raw-materials for manufacturing P.V.C. Films is mixed with the above-mentioned additives in suitable proportions. The mixing is done in a high speed fluidising mixer wherein the liquid centents the additives get uniformly absorbed by the Resin and other solid ingredients gel uniformly dispersed in the mixer.The mixing is done at an elevated temperature and the final product from the mixer is cooled in a cooling vessel. The mixture is called the P.V.C. Compound which will be in the form of free-flowing powder. The above P.V.C. compound is fed into the hopper of the blown film extrusion plant w...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Iconpaper

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT722Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made to the order-in-appeal dated 24-1-1997 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had reversed the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner of Customs, dated 29-4-1994.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents imported the goods (Adast Dominant 725P and Two Colour Offset Printing Machine) and filed bill of entry dated 22-2-1991 through Customs House Agent M/s.While and Company, Mumbai, seeking clearance of those goods which were supplied to them by M/s. Koyo Foreign Trade Corporation, Praha, Czechoslovakia, vide invoice dated 2142-1990 for C & F value of Rs. 8,86,623/-. The respondents showed Rs. 44,778/- in that bill of entry as local agent's commission. They also along with the bill of entry submitted a copy of the order dated 4-9-1990 placed by them on M/s. J.Mahabeer & Co. Pvt. Ltd. for import of the said goods, as on the imported goods they were to pay Rs. 1,79,115/- to that company towards commission, in...

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC367

1. The issue raised in both these appeals is the eligibility of items like storage tanks, electrical cables, electric motors, electric board, spares for control panels, pipes, fittings etc. for modvat credit as capital goods. The main ground for denying credit is that no manufacturing or processing activity is being carried out by these items. A view has been taken that only items used for producing or processing or bringing about any change in substances for the manufacture of finished products would be eligible for modvat credit.Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal to the effect that every process does not amount to manufacture.2. As against this, the appellants have contended that every plant, equipment etc. installed in the factory for the purpose of manufacturing finished goods would be eligible of the benefit of modvat credit. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellants also pointed out that the question is no more r...

Commissioner of Customs, (Acc) Vs. Kantilal Manilal and Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC49Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent to this appeal imported a consignment of rubber stoppers made of synthetic rubbers for closing bottles and claimed reimportation in terms of the Import Policy 1992-97. It is contended that the stoppers were nothing other than "plugs" which were classifiable for the purpose of policy under sub-heading .06 of Heading 401693. The department was of the view that the goods could more appropriately fall in the residuary heading 99 - "other" and issued notice. After considering the reply, the Additional Commissioner held that the goods would fall in sub-heading 90, ordered their confiscation under Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act with an option to redeem them on payment of fine, and imposed a penalty on the importer. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the importer that the goods would fall in sub-heading 4016.93 and set aside the Additional Commissioner's order. He also relied upon a clarification contained in circula...

Rishi Packers Ltd. and Naresh Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC606

1. These two appeals are directed against the same order. Accordingly, they are disposed of under this common order.2. The Commissioner has demanded duty of over Rs. 14,000 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 on M/s. Rishi Packers Ltd.. Separate penalty of Rs. 2,000 has been imposed on Shri Naresh Zinabhai Patel. These actions were taken by the Commissioner on a finding that the first appellant had clandestinely manufactured and removed without payment of duty 4800 paper reinforced bags valued at Rs. 40,704.3. The submission of the appellants is that the finding is supported by only a wrong entry made by the appellant showing a production of 4800 paper reinforced bags in the production account of 5.1.93, which was noticed by the Central Excise Officers during their visit on 6.1.93.The appellants have submitted that there was actually no production of 4800 paper reinforced bags on that day. It was only an erroneous entry made by their employee. According to them, this was evident from th...

Colour Chem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of dyes and paints. It utilises some of these captively in the factory in the manufacture of other goods. The value of such captively consumed goods was based upon the cost of manufacture provided in Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules. Notice issued to it alleged that in determining the cost of manufacture in the head office, administrative expenses, selling overhead, research and development expenses, publicity and packing expenses had not been taken into account. The Dy. Commissioner accepted the Asst. Commissioner contention that these elements did not form part of the cost of manufacture. The department appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that it would form part of the cost of manufacture and set aside the Dy. Commissioner's order. May be that portion of this order is sought to be stayed.2. After hearing the party, it is prima facie vie...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the action of the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning to the appellant a refund of Rs. 10 lakhs and ordering adjustment of this amount towards an amount due of Rs. 76.50 lakhs which he finds is due to be payable by the appellant.2. The counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in National Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 616 in support of his proposition that the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs which was deposited pursuant to a stay order of the Tribunal in an appeal which the appellant finally won should have been refunded to it, and should not have adjusted against any other amount due. We do not find anything in the judgment in Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 or the other judgment to support the proposition that merely because the...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. United Esters and Nitrochem Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT389Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The notice issued to United Esters & Nitrochem Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, proposed to deny to it the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 175/86 for the period 25-1-1991 to 31-3-1991 and to demand duty consequently not paid. The basis for the demand was that Cellulose Products of India Ltd. cleared the goods in excess of the value of Rs. 2 crores in the preceding financial year 1989-90. The respondent had manufactured and cleared the goods from 25-1-1991 in a factory which earlier belonged to Cellulose Products of India Ltd. Therefore, one of the conditions contained in paragraph 3(b) of the notification, that the aggregate value of clearances of excisable goods for home consumption by one or more manufacturer from a factory during the preceding year should not exceed Rs. 3 crores had been contravened.The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent had pu...