Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Pandurang Shriram Gadekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR843; 2004(2)MhLj912

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is filed by a non-tribal transferor against the order dated 31-12-1990 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, upholding the order dated 27-8-1989 passed by the Tahsildar, Gondia. By the said order dated 27-8-1989, the Tahsildar, Gondia, on observing that there are no heirs of the tribal transferor, has directed that the property should vest in the State Government under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The land in question is about 2.60 acres at village Kudwa, taluka Gondia, District Bhandara. It was indisputably owned and possessed by Kashiram s/o Laxman Parade, who was the tribal transferor. This was land was purchased by one Shriram s/o. Damodar Gadekar and his brother Shankar Gadekar under a registered sale deed dated 17-6-1966 from the said Kashiram s/o. Laxman Parade and they were placed in possession thereof immediately after its purchase. The said Kashiram s/o ...

Manoj Mittal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT345Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon the applicant herein holding that he is one of the persons who master minded the episode of mis-declaration of quantity and value of goods by M/s. Neetu Fashion for the purpose of availment of drawback to which they were not entitled.2. Although none appears for the applicant in spite of notice, since the matter has come up more than once we proceed to hear the Jt. CDR and perused the records.3. The learned Jt. CDR in all fairness has pointed out that although the show cause notice was issued on three charges, namely, (1) mis-declaration of quantity and quality, (2) mis-declaration of value of the goods, and (3) non-receipt of remittance of foreign exchange, the Commissioner has held that there is no evidence to establish mis-declaration of quantity and value and has only held that the charge of non-receipt of remittance has been established. In these circumstances prima facie we fail to see ho...

G.S.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC195

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Synthetic Blend Spun Yarn. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain why the credit on capital goods availed during the period September 1994 to October 1994 to the tune of Rs. 57,37,248/- should not be denied under Rule 57U of Central Excise Rules and why penalty should not be imposed on them. In the impugned order the Commissioner denied the credit taken on certain inputs and allowed the rest. He disallowed the credit of Rs. 14,94,596/-. M/s. G.S.L, the appellants were aggrieved by this order.The Revenue also filed an appeal against the same order on the ground that the Commissioner should not have allowed credit of Rs. 42,652/-.Both the appeals are taken up for disposal.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner did not allow credit on the following inputs on the grounds stated against eachSL.No.1 M.S.Plates/Bars Tor Steel, Cement , Construction material Sheets etc. construction ofthe2. PVC Eliminators Used only in ...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Universal Cables Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein had paid a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs pursuant to interim order No. Misc/159/94-C. They succeeded in the appeal and therefore the amount paid under the directions of the Tribunal was refunded to them. Subsequently they filed a claim for interest of Rs. 1,99,452/- on the refunded amount; which claim was rejected on the ground that Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, under which the claim was lodged did not provide for payment of interest on refund of pre-deposit. The importers/respondents succeeded in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs was not a revenue deposit but duty and hence they were entitled to interest as a result of delay in grant of refund beyond the stipulated time period. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs represents duty; as this amount is clearly in the nature of revenue deposit. However, the claim for interest is to be ...

Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT859Tri(Mum.)bai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of differential duty of Rs. 6,41,87,322/- (duty at tariff rate less duty paid at concessional rate under Notification 138/86 and 23/94) arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, who has upheld the adjudication order under which the duty demand was confirmed as a result of classification of the disputed products, namely, Intaglio paper, SC Intaglio, Opaline, SC Kraft paper and Opaque laminating base paper under Chapter heading 48.06 and denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 138/86 dated 01/03/1986 as amended by Notification 30/93 dated 28/02/1993 and Notification 23/94 dated 01/03/1994. The duty demand of Rs. 22,78,01,296/- raised in the notice was reduced to the amount finally confirmed as seen from para 36 of the adjudication order at page 101 of the paperbook. The details of the duty demand are shown in the annexure to this order.2. We have heard both ...

Kraps Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT705Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit duty of Rs. 92,53,196/- confirmed against the manufacturing company and penalty of equal amount imposed upon it and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon its Director arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat.The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the process carried out by the assessees of blending bought out guar dal powder with additives such as saw dust and tamarind kernel powder using glyxol and methanol for dispersion of powder from the sides of blender in which the mixing took place, is a process amounting to manufacture of guar gum falling for classification under CETA sub-heading 1301.10, rejecting the contention of the assessee that the process carried out does not amount to manufacture. The extended period of limitation has been invoked, holding that they were guilty of suppression.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner has given a detailed finding that the process carried o...

Ganesh Steel Re-rolling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is only as regards the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for the delay, determined in payment of the amounts required to be paid under the Annual Production Capacity fixed for this appellant, an assessee engaged in manufacture of iron and steel products.2a. The appellant's case is that there was a change in parameters with effect from October 4, 1997 which required a relief in the penalty imposed for delay in payment since amount with interest has already been discharged. Therefore, penalty was required to be set aside. It was also pointed out that the rule under which the penalty was imposed and confirmed was not mentioned and in 1997 there was no clause of penalty under Rule 96 ZP.2b. The DR for the department draws attention to the Show Cause Notice where in Section 11AC and Rule 173Q have been involved and submits that the non-mention a rule in the order in the present case, would not be fatal to the penalty imposed. (a) Rule 96 ZP (I) (C) Proviso for the relevant...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Special Steels Ltd. and Indian

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC330

1. Heard both sides, Shri Sanjay Singhal, learned J.D.R. appearing for the department states that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner allowing duty exemption Notification No. 204/92-CUS dated 19.5-1992 and without imposing any penalty even though it is a clear case where the input duty credit has been taken by the exporter, and hence, there is a clear violation of the conditions of the said notification. He also cites the Review Order No. 39-R/98 dated 06.02.1998 passed by the Board pointing out that the licensee deliberately suppressed the fact of having taken modvat credit under Rule 57A and willfully made a wrong declaration to the licensing authority to obtain endorsement of transferability. He further states that the original licence holder, having availed of the modvat credit in respect of the goods exported, was not eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 204/92 and therefore, the transfer of the licence was illegal and in any case, the transferee ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Venkatesh Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant was entitled to refund of the duty paid a second time on goods which it claimed had after first being cleared, returned for remedy of defects. The Asst. Commissioner has denied the refund claim on the ground that the required procedure had not been followed by the claimant. It has not maintained any statutory records and not produced any duty paying document. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the failure to follow the procedure would be condoned and allowed the refund. Hence this appeal.2. Rule 173 L provides for grant of refund of duty paid on manufactured goods which have been issued for home consumption which are returned to the factory of production or any other factory for being remade, refined or reconditioned or subject to any other similar process. Among the condition subject to which the refund can be granted are that the assessee furnished information to the department rel...

Jai Bharat Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants were engaged in the activity of ship breaking and salvaging various items from the same. They were registered with the Central Excise Authorities as Goods and Materials of Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff obtained by breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures were classified under heading 72.30 and were required to pay duty prescribed therein. They were availing credit of CVD paid on old ships imported for breaking up. The credit so availed was used to discharge the duty payable under 72.30. Consequent to the activity undertaken articles other than these falling under Chapter 72 also emerge and they were cleared as non-excisable items.2.a) A show cause notice dt. 27.10.1995 was served as to why modvat credit of Rs. 19,542/- allegedly availed wrongly should not be recovered under Rule 57I read with Section 11A as the entire amount of CVD paid on the ship imported was availed as credit while various items obtained during breaking up were cleared witho...