Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Goneka Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 3,67,439/- confirmed against the appellants as differential duty in respect of two bill of entries by enhancing the assessable value of the goods imported by them. Penalty of Rs. 60,000/- On each of the bill of entry were also be imposed by the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs.2. Shri G.B. Yadhav, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the assessable value has been enhanced on the basis of report of SASMIRA and other contemporaneous bill of entry. Result of the SASMIRA test report shows that the appellant mis-declared the description of the goods. He submits that the goods were provisionally cleared by the appellants and bank guarantee was given by them. Vide his letter dated 3.12.2002 the Deputy Commissioner of Customs addressed to Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce approached for encashment of the bank guarantee. He also submits that to...

indira Gandhi S.S.G. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri V.B. Gaikwad, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R., for the Revenue, we find that the modvat credit in respect of capital goods were denied to the appellants on two grounds. An amount of Rs. 62,366/- has been dis-allowed on the ground that no declaration under the Provisions of Rule 57 T(1) was filed by the appellants before availing the credit in respect of capital goods. An amount of Rs. 45,16,243/- has been dis-allowed in respect of capital goods on the ground that no entry in respect of the same was made in the RG 23 A part-I thought credit was taken in part-II register.2. As regards, the first issue the learned advocate submits that they had field declaration under Rule 57 T but exact description of the goods was not given in some cases. However, he submits that in view of the decision given by the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steel P. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut - 2000 (12...

G. Ioannis, Tentous Shipping Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT674Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These five appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, ordering confiscation of ship Orient Shreyas under Section 115(2) of the Act with an option to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 2.5 crores and imposing penalties under Section 112 and 114 of varying amounts on the other appellants. The ship was owned at the relevant time by Tentous Shipping Co. Ltd., a Cypress company, and was on time charter to Orient Express Line. At the relevant time, the ship was sailing between the ports of Mumbai and Arabian Gulf. The ship called at Mumbai on 2^nd October, 1995, having arrived from Dubai.Rummaging of the ship that took place between 2^nd and 5^th October, which resulted in the recovery on 3^rd of 4000 tolas of gold and recovery on the 5^th October of US$ 25,00,000. It is on his finding that the appellants were concerned with smuggling of these goods that the Commissioner has confiscated and imposed penalties.2. Half of the gold was kept in cloth belt inside a ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Omkar Textile Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is Revenue's appeal against order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad vide which he has remanded the matter to the original Adjudicating authority with the following directions:- "I have gone through the facts of the case. The appellants were heard on 10-6-2002. It appeals that while fixing the APC in respect of the Stenters, the measurement of galleries had also been taken into consideration. However, as per the CEGAT Larger Bench's decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd., v. CCE, Jaipur, reported at 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-LB), the galleries are not to be taken into account while computing production capacity of Stenter as it is not an equipment aiding the process of heat setting or drying of fabrics as contemplated by Explanation I to Rule 3. Moreover, in the subject case one Stenter, which was dismantled and was not in operation in February, the duty has also been charged on the same. If these facts are taken into consi...

Montage Chemicals Ltd., Bushal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We are concerned in these appeals the classification for the purpose of assessment of the product manufactured by Montage Chemical Ltd. (appeal 1950/96) and Bhushal Labs (1951/96) on job work for Merind Ltd. (1953/96). In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner, after determining the classification of these goods contrary to those claimed by the manufacturer, has imposed penalties not only on the manufacturer but also on Merind Ltd. under Rule 209A.2. Montage Chemical Ltd. and Bushal Labs, whom we refer to as assessees, were engaged in the manufacture of two categories of substance. The first were goods claimed as medicament in heading 3003 of the tariff. These are amprolium soluble powder USP and piperazine hexahydrate solution. The Commissioner has determined the classification of these products in sub heading 10 of heading 30003 as patent or proprietary medicament. The reason that he advances is that the labels, monogram or logo consisting of a letter 'M' in...

Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of differential duty of Rs. 10,60,341/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Ice-cream and Ice-candy falling under Chapter Heading 21.05 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985 which is covered by Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purpose of valuation of excisable goods. It was noticed that the assessee had declared different retail prices for different regions for same flavour same pack of the goods and therefore failed to determine and discharge correct duty liability at the maximum of such retail prices as required under Section 4A(2), Explanation (2) of Act on the clearance of the excisable goods during the month of March, 1999 and April, 1999. This resulted in the short levy of Rs. 10,60,341/-. Two show cause notices wee issued ...

Gautam Petrochem Industries P. Vs. Commissioner of Central 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 of duty and penalty we find that it was possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage with the consent of both sides. We therefore proceed to do so.2. The three issues for determination in this case relate to classification of master batches, a colouring substance, manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein, their eligibility to the benefit of modvat credit and the determination of duty liability after extending the benefit of modvat credit. The claim of the assessees was that the products in dispute on which the demand was confirmed fall for classification under CETA sub-heading 3206.90 which covers: "other colouring matter; preparations as specified in Note 2 to this Chapter, other than those of heading 32.03, 32.04 or 32.05; inorganic products of a kind used as luminophores, whether or not chemically defined".3. While according to the Revenue the products fall for classi...

Zavaray S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through Secretary of L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR411; 2003(5)BomCR46; 2002LC121(Bombay); 2003(159)ELT44(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The Petitioner who with permission has hunted wild animals including leopard Panthera Pardus) at Zambia and has subjected the hunted animals into a taxidermy/trophy items has been denied importation and clearance of the said items by the Customs/CITES authorities in India and hence this petition is filed seeking appropriate orders for clearance of the said items.2. As a result of indiscriminate killing of the animals and birds by human beings, either for its flesh or for trade or as a matter of hobby, several species of animals/birds have virtually become extinct. To curb the ecological imbalance caused by the ruthless killings of the animals and birds various legislations have been enacted by several countries worldwide, to protect the lives of the endangered species of animals and birds and also curb the international trade in live animals/birds or their products.3. The convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an i...

Saurabh Kalani Vs. Tata Finance Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR117; 2003(3)ARBLR345(Bom); I(2004)BC443; 2003(5)BomCR844; 2003(4)MhLj810; [2003]46SCL678(Bom)

ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an award, Chandrachud J. dismissed this petition and it is from that order of dismissal that this appeal is preferred. Respondent No. 1 had granted financial facility to a company by name Gilt Pack Ltd. (GPL). In so far as the Appellant is concerned. It is common ground that he had furnished a personal guarantee to secure the outstanding dues of the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 invoked the personal guarantee which was furnished by the Appellant upon default of the company in paying the outstanding dues payable under four Bills of Exchange in the total amount of Rs. 50 lakhs, which were discounted by Respondent No. 1. On 16-12-1999, in pursuance of the provisions of arbitration contained in Clause 23 of the Deed of Guarantee Respondent No. 1 referred the dispute which had arisen between the parties to the sole arbitration of Mr....

Mr. D.V. Shetty, Being the Head Administration of Citicorp Information ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj284

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioners are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by 39th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Vile Parle in Court Case No. 19717/M of 1988, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, which was filed by Shri R.S. Chavan, Legal Assistant, Bombay Municipal Corporation alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 390 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) and initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioner. He prayed for quashing the said proceeding.2. The petitioners are having an office at Subhash B Road. National Plastic Premises, Vile Parle (East), where there are according to the case of the complainant, conducting Computer software with motor/engine in electric power with total 400 aggregate H.P.3. According to the case of the Corporation the petitioner is having 190 Computers kept in the premises, which is ha...