Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Harikeshao Shriiram Gadhwe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ170

ORDERR.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Jaiswal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Patel, learned APP for the respondents.2. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.3. This is an application made by the petitioner for grant of parole. It appears that the applicant had applied for parole on 1-1-2003. Parole had been sought on the ground of his son's illness. The record indicates that on 20-1-2003, the police report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police. Yavatmal to the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, confirming that son of the petitioner was not well and further that one Mandabai Gokulrao Lawre was ready to stand his surety. Similar is the report of the District Collector dated 3-3-2003. The medical certificate pertaining to the son of the petitioner is the part of the record available with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and it indicates that son of the petitioner is suffering from P.V.O. and enteric fever.4. A perusal of the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. BipIn Silk and Synthetics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who has dropped duty demand of Rs. 18,149.19 on the stock of MMF (man made fabrics) not available in the factory on the visit of the officers on 05/04/92, Rs. 18,696.35 on shortage of MMF detected on the same date, and Rs. 6,29,761/- on MMF allegedly processed as per Jet Dyeing note book and dropped penal action proposed in the show cause notice issued to the respondents herein.2. I heard both sides. The demand of Rs. 18,149.19 was raised only on the ground that MMF bearing lot Nos. 333 to 336 was not physically available, although lot register showed these lots in balance. The Commissioner has rightly dropped this demand, as it was raised on presumptions and there is no evidence that the quantity covered by these lots was processed clandestinely and removed without payment of duty, accepting the explanation of the respondents that the lots were mixed up and that the total quantity should have been ...

Gujarat Containers Ltd., Sagar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals involve a common issue for determination and are hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that Service Tax was imposed on the services provided by Goods Transport Operators in relation to carriage of goods. Earlier, Service Tax was required to be paid by a person availing of such services and show cause notices were issued requiring the appellants to pay service tax for Goods Transport Operators services provided to them, since they had neither applied for registration with the Central Excise authorities nor paid the service tax, hence contravening Section 68 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1944, directing them to furnish quarterly return in Form ST-3 and also proposing recovery of interest for delayed payment of service tax and proposing penal action under Section 76, 77 & 79 of the Finance Act, 1944.3. Prior to the issue of the notices, the validity of Rule 2(d)(xvii) of the Service Tax Rules 1944 was challenge...

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit in E/S/362/03/Mum, in appeal No. E/476/03/Mum, I found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving the pre-deposit, I proceed to hear and dispose of appeal No. E/476/03/Mum alongwith connected appeals Nos. E/155 & 156/2002/Mum.2. On hearing both sides, I note that credit on High Chrome Grinding Media is required to be extended as the ground for denial of credit, viz., that declaration filed by the appellant was in terms of Rule 57T for capital goods while the items were to be found inputs under Rule 57A requiring declaration under Rule 57G is not sustainable. It has already been held by the Tribunal that non filing of a separate declaration for inputs is not a ground for denial and the declaration under Rule 57Q can be treated as sufficient for the purpose of extending modvat credit; hence I hold that the appellants are entitled to credit of Rs. 3,63,488/-,...

Sun Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein claimed refund of CVD paid on import of Petroleum Jelly sold on high sea sales basis to M/s Richardson Hindustan Limited, on 7.2.1984 and the claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide his order dt. 27.5.1985. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; his order were set aside by the Tribunal, which extended the benefit of Notification No. 234/82 and directed the claimant to produce triplicate bill of entry before the authorities below. The claimants moved the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for non implementation of the Tribunal's order and High Court remanded the case with the direction that the authorities should examine the reason for non-availability of the Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry and should examine the applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment.The refund claim was once again rejected vide order dt. 16.12.1992 on the ground of both non-production of original triplicate bill of entry and unjust enrichment. The claimants...

RamnaraIn and Co. and Ashokkumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Ramnarain & Co. tendered three shipping bills for export of cut and polished synthetic stones. Examination of the consignment lead the officers to conclude that the goods were rough synthetic stone and not cut and polished as declared by the exporters. The value declared of the goods was also much lower than what was declared. Notice issued to the exporter alleged that the total value of three consignments tendered for export sought to be exported should be around Rs. 3 lakhs instead of the declared value totalling Rs. 90,92,074/-. Amendment of the value and confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of the Section 113 of the Act was proposed. Penalty was also proposed on Ashokkumar Gupta, the partner of the exporter. After considering the submissions made by the exporter and its partner and hearing them, the Commissioner has passed orders ordering confiscation of the goods, permitting them to be cleared on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- ea...

Shrifabs India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT605Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the decision of the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant did not take credit of the additional duty of Customs on the bill of entry filed by Galaxy Paints Ltd. for the reason that this document was not endorsed in its favour.2. The representative of the appellant contends that a declaration which was filed along with the bill of entry by the importer to the Customs shows that the goods sold by Galaxy Paints to the appellant had not taken credit. This constitutes endorsement.3. I am unable to accept this contention; The declaration which the appellant relies upon is undated and does not have any evidence of having been submitted to Customs. Its contents directly contradict the bill of entry. It says that Galaxy Paints had sold the quantity of goods mentioned in the bill of entry covered by the bill of entry on high-sea sales. If the goods were in fact sold by Galaxy Paints on high-sea basis to the appellan...

V. Rama Rao Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on V. Rama Rao for act or omission in his capacity as a director of P.J. Pipes and Vessels Ltd. 2. The Commissioner has passed common orders demanding duty from P.J.Pipes & Vessels Ltd. on a consignment of steels sheets that it imported without payment of duty in terms of the exemption contained in notification 513/86 on his view taht these goods were not utilised for the purpose specified in the notification, but diverted and sold in the market. He also imposed penalty on the importer P.J. Vohra, its managing director, M.C. Panjwani and appellant before us. In its order reported in 2002 (139) ELT 139, this Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the importer and of Vohra. It appears that no appeal has been filed by Panjwani and that the present appeal was inadvertently not taken up with the other appeals.3. The contentions of the counsel for the appellant are these. The appellant at the relevan...

Abs Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT229Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether rupture disk is an item entitled to be considered capital goods for purposes of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the credit on the ground that it was only a safety device and did not satisfy the requirement contained in Rule 57Q of producing or processing any goods or for bringing about change in any substance for the manufacture of the finished goods.CCE v. Jawahar Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3, the Supreme Court has confirmed the view taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the appeal before it to the goods which comply with the definition contained in Rule 57Q but without which manufacture of the final product in the factory were capital goods. A rupture disc is fitted on a tube leaking out of a pressure vessel, if the pressure in the vessel exceeds the specified limit, it causes the disc to replace thus providing a means of exit for the g...

Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported in August 1995 a consignment of 15 tons of low density polyethylene declaring the total value of Rs. 446091. The value of the consignment was increased to Rs. 593009/- by the orders issued on 8.11.1995 by the Asst. Collector. The importer appealed this order on the ground that no basis had been made out for enhancement of the value. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed orders on 25.9.1997 accepting this contention and setting aside the Asst. Commissioner's order. He however declined to accept the request of the importer for issue of detention certificate to the Mumbai Port Trust on the ground that he had no authority to do so. This last part of the order is under challenge in this appeal.2. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, we are unable to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)' view. A detention certificate is issued by the customs authorities to the custodian of the goods - in this case the Mumbai Port Trust - recommending waiver of or reduction...