Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Omega Trading and Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants sought to export the impugned goods declaring the same as Polypropylene Woven Fabrics in the shipping bills claiming DEPB benefit @ 22% against Sr. No. 86 of Plastic Group-63.2. It is the case of the department that the impugned goods are Durries and are not covered under the DEPB scheme. The department has also alleged over valuation. In view of the fact that the shipping bills were filed in July 1999 and the appellants now want the confiscated goods back to town, the export orders having lapsed, the issues of coverage under the specific DEPB entry and over valuation are of academic interest at this stage. We, however, find that the fine of Rs. 25 Lakhs and the penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed by the Commissioner are excessive. The appellants could have been allowed to export the consignments and the department could have decided appropriate classification of the goods under the DEPB scheme and also the appropriate valuation. We do not find any justi...

Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue under challenge is the forfeiture of the facility of fortnightly payment of duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.For the purpose of reference Rule 8 is reproduced as under:- RULE 8. Manner of Payment--(1) The duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during the first fortnight of the month shall be paid by the 20^th of that month and the duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during the second fortnight of the month shall be paid by the 5^th of the following month; Provided that in the case of goods removed during the second fortnight of the month of March, the duty shall be paid by the 31st day of March. Provided further that where an assessee is availing of the exemption under a notification based on the value of clearances in a financial year, the duty on goods cleared during a calendar month shall be paid by the 15^th day of the following month. Explanation--For removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the duty l...

Moontex Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals have been preferred against a common Order-in-Appeal dated 29-5-97 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority who ordered confiscation of the semi-finished and finished goods and imposed penalties on the appellants as detailed therein.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellant No. 1 is a firm, while the appellant No. 2 is a partner of that firm looking after its day to day affairs and business of the firm. The Preventive Officers of the Central Excise raided the factory premises of the appellant on 12-4-1995 and found 336 pieces of semi-finished and 401 pieces of finished goods, that is, man-made fabrics, and grey fabrics which were not entered in the statutory records. All those goods had been detailed in the Show-cause Notice, and these were seized after preparing panchnama, in the presence of two witnesses. The statement of the appellant No. 2, partner of the firm, was recorded wherein he has ...

Indian Bank Vs. Hemali Art Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)BC55

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Indian Bank being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.6.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal- II, Mumbai in Original Application No. 3398/2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application filed by the Bank with costs against the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 and these defendants were jointly and severally ordered to pay to the applicant Bank an amount of Rs. 48,24,153.86 with interest at the rate of 18.5% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the order of the original application till full realization. The learned Presiding Officer also gave declaration that subject to first charge of defendant No. 8 Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd. in respect of outstanding of recovery certificate issued by Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thane in ABN/TPCB/101/28 of 1987, the outstandings are secured by validly created mortgage (by defendant No. 3) of his flat No....

Shivchandrai Jhunjhunwala, Charitable Trust and ors. Vs. Govindprasad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1065; 2004(2)BomCR441

D.D. Sinha, J.1. The present writ petitions along with about three hundred other writ petitions are listed before this Court for admission wherein interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Courts during pendency of the suits are impugned. Majority of these writ petitions are filed after withdrawing civil revision applications, which were filed prior to amendment to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein same orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, were impugned and, therefore, before adjudicating the issue on merits, at the outset the Bar was called upon to address this Court on the legal issue as to the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vested in the High Court, whether High Court can refuse to exercise the same, which otherwise would defeat the mandate of statutory provisions of law contained in section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stands substantially amended with effect from 1-7-2002 and interference by this Court under section...

Arunoday Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT181Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri V.N. Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that there was a delay of only one day in filing the 57T declaration as mentioned at page 57 and in the show cause notice at page 48. Shri Nair contended that under the proviso to the said rule delay upto 3 months could be condoned. He submitted that the request for condonation of the delay was made before the lower authorities but the adjudicating authority while rejecting the request did not pass any speaking order and whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) touched the aspect of condonation of delay on a different footing unrelated to the issue in question. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of Magnum Industries reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 595 (Tri.). The said decision relates to order passed on stay petition. However, the learned counsel contended that he issue of condonation of delay in filing the declaration discussed in the said decision and it has been inter alia held that the ...

Project Technologists Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(161)ELT783Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing the argument on the application for rectification of mistake by the Commissioner, we recall our earlier order and having heard the departmental representative and counsel for the applicant on the appeal, proceed to dictate our order.2. The notice issued to the applicant proposed recovery of duty consequent upon the denial of the exemption contained in notification 175/86 that it had claimed. The basis for the denial was on the ground that the certification of the registration of the appellant as a small scale industry was only provisional and not final and the investment made in the plant and machinery of Rs. 35 lakhs was in excess of the limit prescribed for a small scale industry. The notice dated 14.2.95 sought to recover duty paid allegedly not paid during 1989-90 and 1990-91 and hence invoked the extended period of limitation contained in proviso below Section 11A(1) on the ground that the appellant had allegedly wilful mis-statement by the appellant. The Commiss...

S.K. Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 43,328/- and penalty of Rs. 45,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the duty demand as a result of classification of the product in dispute which is described as "Punch Metal" under CETA sub-heading 8522.00 being part of audio speakers.2. It is the submission of the learned consultant for the applicants that the item in dispute cannot fall under heading 8522.00 as this heading covers only parts and accessories of apparatus of heading 85.19 to 85.21 while the goods in question are parts of T.V. receivers falling under 8528.00 and thus merit classification under CETA sub-heading 8529.00 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of heading 85.25 to 85.28. He therefore prays that pre-deposit of the duty demand and penalty amount may be waived and their recovery stayed pending the appeal.3. The prayer is opposed by the learned SDR who highlights the aspect that it was ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jindal Texofab Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT102Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent to this appeal seeks adjournment. Having heard the departmental representative, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself.2. The ground in the appeal by the Commissioner in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that his order remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority is not in accordance with law. Sub-section (3) of Section 35A of the Act which reads as "the Commissioner (Appeals) may wish, after making enquiry that may be necessary pass such orders as he thinks just and proper confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against it." It is contended that prior to its amendment the words of the section as they now stand, the sub-section besides providing that the Commissioner may pass such order as it deems fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against, provided that he may refer the case back to the adjudicating authority with such direction as he may think fit for fresh adjudication.3. In his judgment in ...

Parekh Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, totalling to Rs. 3,45,376/- arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the above mentioned differential amount on the applicants, who are processors of grey fabrics, on the ground that the value of grey fabrics supplied by the merchant manufacturers was not the correct value but that the grey fabrics had been undervalued.2. The contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the applicant are two fold. Firstly, Notification 27/1992, which provides exemption from licencing control to persons who intend to have goods manufactured on their behalf by supplying raw materials casts liability or responsibility of declaration of true and correct value of grey fabrics upon the grey fabrics supplier and the declaration given by the supplier in terms of the notification would clearly shows that it is the supplier who is declaring the value of the fabrics sent to the job workers. As far as the knowledge on t...