Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Shitala Prasad Sharma and Manoj Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT21Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the penalty on the appellant has been imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submitted that the Provisions of the said rule clearly provide that the penalty can be imposed on the person, when he acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, keeping, selling or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these Rules, shall be liable to penalty not exceeding 3 times the value of such goods or Rs.5,000/-, whichever is greater. He emphasized that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellants have in any way reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation and in fact the goods have not been confiscated in the present case. Besides, he also submitted that the main parties are Sapna Engineering and its proprietor Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma, hav...

Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT479Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and on finding that the disputed entity i.e. Danglers Advertising Material have been considered and found by us to be an Article of Printing Industry therefore following the decision in case of CCE v. Adhunik Plastic Industries - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 365, classification under Chapter heading 49 with benefit of Article of Printing Industry is confirmed and appeal allowed accordingly....

Weizmann Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT140Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive & Adjudication), Mumbai order No.CC(P)/SSS/ADJN/32/98, dated 30-10-1998 and Order No.94/2000/CAC/CC/MKB, dated 31-3-2000 are taken up together for disposal.2. The appellants are a full-fledged Money Changer licence holders given by the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In July 1997 the appellants sold foreign exchange to another FFMC known as M/s. Tiruchi Enterprises.Investigations revealed that M/s. Tiruchi Enterprises has obtained and FFMC licence from the Reserve Bank giving in correct particulars about themselves in so far as their address is concerned. Investigations further revealed that M/s. Tiruchi Enterprises after obtaining foreign exchange from various FFMC's were smuggling the foreign exchange out of the country. The sale proceeds thus obtained were being deposited in various banks in which M/s. Tiruchi Enterprises holds accounts. The sa...

Bhachraj Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT328Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that shipments of readymade garments were made in the name of M/s. Omjit Industries of which Shri Gautam Jain was the Proprietor. Consequent to these exports substantial amount of Drawback was received. Although Gautam Jain was the exporter on record, the entire operation was organized by Gurmeet Singh Kohli who (sic) the garment, organized exports, deposited the amounts in the name of the exporter on record and withdrew the entire amount. The Commissioner of Customs (P) Mumbai ordered repayment of duty drawback of Rs. 25,28,668/- by Shri Gurmeet Singh Kolhi and imposed penalties of different amounts on Gurmeet Singh Kolhi, Gautam Jain and others. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed upon the appellant's herein Under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, on the ground that "the role of Shri Bhacharaj Singh alias R.K. Chauhan alias Thakur in also found to be dubious which is not expected of a prudent person". Hence this appeal.2. We have heard both si...

Mohd. Irfan Shiekh and Shri. A.A. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Pursuant to an investigation that a new imported cars were substituted by an old and used ear and the new car was removed in contravention of the Rules from Docks, show cause notices were issued.The car/vehicle in this case, was one Toyota Land Cruiser with chassis no HDJ-81-0075578 which, was recovered from one Arshad Ahmed Siddique.The said vehicle was imported in a container and cleared surreptitiously & ostensibly on Bill of Entry no 8425 filed by one Noorgani Mohd. Kasim Gulam Shareef. It was assessed to duty on this Bill of Entry, the chassis no of Toyota Land Cruiser was shown as EE 800075578 and the Bill of Entry was presented for examination to the Shed Appraiser on 21-5-99 the container was found to contain a Toyota Land Cruiser car that bearing Chassis number EE 800075578 and the same car was allowed clearances of payment of duty of Rs. 1,47,731. This Toyota Land Cruiser subsequently seized by police, was claimed from the Police authorities, on an application moved i...

Purna Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein are a sugar mill who had cleared sugar for export to merchant exporters namely M/s. Yogi Exporter and M/s. Ashok Exporter on payment of duty at the time of clearance during the period from 1.9.2001 to 30.11.2001. The exporter appeared to have diverted the sugar for domestic market instead of exporting the same hence show cause notice was issued to the appellants and merchant exporters demanding additional duty as per Section 7 of the Sugar Export Permission Act, 1958 and proposing imposition of penalty". The adjudicating authority dropped the demand of additional duty; however she imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant in addition to penalties on the exporters. The penalty on the appellant was imposed in terms of Section 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard both sides and perused the relevant Rule which reads as under:- Rule 25. Confiscation and Penalty. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, if...

Datar Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT1129Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad. In the impugned order the Commissioner denied modvat credit on items listed 1 to 10 in the show cause notice for three different reasons to which we shall advert to later in this order.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of goods falling under chapter No.85 of CETA. They have availed of modvat credit on capital goods on the items listed 1 to 10 in the show cause notice. The Commissioner denied credit on various items for the reasons given hereunder; He denied capital goods credit on the computer on the ground that the same does not come under capital goods. The appellants' contention is that the computer is a works station and is a part of Rapid Proto Type Machine.The appellant contends that since Rapid Proto Type Machine is a capital goods its part i.e. computer without which the machine cannot work is capital goods. We observe that the appellant procured the computer separately and during the ...

Kirit Plastic Industries, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC683

1. These appeals arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai. In the impugned order the Commissioner disallowed credit of Rs. 20,07,486/- availed by the appellant under Rule 57-I, confirmed demand for Rs. 5,66,872/- under proviso to Section 11A, confirmed demand amounting to Rs. 1,74,724/- under Rule 57I (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 demanded under three show cause notices, imposed penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 57I, Rule 173Q and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner thus disposed of three show cause notices by a common order; Hence these appeals.2. The facts are that the appellant M/s. Kirit Plastic Industries has availed of modvat credit on plastic granules and sent them by following procedure under Rule 57F(3)/57F(4) to M/s. Polyfab Plastic Industries for getting them converted into Lay Flat Tubes. The appellant contends that he received back LFTs from the job worker. The appellant thereupon subjected the Lay Flat Tubes to cutting ...

Premier Heavy Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals are being disposed off by this common order, since the issues are interrelated. Appeal No. E/527/03 is filed by M/s Foundry Agriculture Mining Equipment (Pvt.) Ltd. (herein after referred to assessee) against Order-in-Appeal No. Commr. (Appeal)/035/VDR/2003 dated 29.12.2003. The brief facts relevant to determine the appeals is that the appellant herein are, an assessee manufacturing equipment under chapter 84 and 85 of CETA 1985 are availing SSI benefit. On 28.6.97 the officers visited the factory of one M/s Premier Heavy Engineering Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PHEC) a partnership firm and a declarant unit also engaged in the manufacturing of the same goods under chapter 84 & 85. After conducting investigation that this unit was a 'Dummy' unit of the assessee appellant herein and that clearances of goods manufacture cleared by assessee unit was being cleared as of PHEC & were required to be clubbed for recovery of Central Excise duty during t...

Pal Peugeot Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT505Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The claim of the appellants for refund of Rs. 17,183/- in terms of Notification No. 64/93-C.E., dt. 28-2-1993 as amended which provides for a further exemption of 10 percentage points in case where a saloon car after the clearance has been registered for use solely as a taxi, has been rejected only on the ground that the saloon car was cleared from the factory on 6-4-1995 and the certificate as required under the notification from an officer authorised by the concerned State Transport Authority has been issued beyond three months from the date of clearance of the saloon car from the factory of the appellants (the saloon car was cleared on 6-4-1995) and the certificate should have been issued on or before 6-7-1995, while it has been issued on 11-7-1995, i.e. 5 days after the expiry of the three months period prescribed in condition No. (II) of the Notification.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellants had not requested for cond...