Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Sheth Ship Breaking Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,34,656/-and stay of operation arose out of the order of commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad. In the impugned order the commissioner held that the price stated in the M.O.A. dt.08-06-99 was the price paid/payable at the time of importation and should be considered for arriving at the assessable value under Section 14 of the customs act. He relied on the decision of the tribunal in the case of commissioner v. Guru Ashish Ship Breakers reported in 2003 (157 ELT 277). He rejected the appellant's contention that the reduction in price mutually agreed upon between the buyer and the seller is justifiable. He held that since such a reduction in price was made after the vessel was imported the original price paid/payable when the vessel was imported should only be considered for assessment.2. We heard ld. D.R. and perused the records. None appeared for the appellants.3. The Commissioner's decision is based on the tribunal's order cite...

Gujarat Aluminium Extrusion Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty demand of Rs. 46,07,712/- has been confirmed against the appellants who are manufacturers of aluminium products falling under Chapter 76 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. Out of this amount approximately Rs. 36.90 lakhs has been confirmed on aluminium scrap received as inputs as well as generated in the factory, removed under Rule 57F(2) without payment of duty to job workers for conversion into ingots which were returned to the appellants. The balance duty has been confirmed by holding that the appellants were not entitled to modvat credit of this amount on the increase in duty of the modvated inputs; as credit was taken without support of any valid duty paying documents showing payment of differential duty by the input manufacturer, M/s.Gujarat Casting Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that in respect of the demand of Rs. 36.90 lakhs inputs scrap was removed under the cover of permission dated 23/10/1987, which was withdrawn as erroneously granted a...

Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein took excess modvat credit of Rs. 59,59,044 on 5.4.2001. Subsequently, on detecting the mistake they reversed the amount on 6.10.2001. A show cause notice dated 24.9.02 was issued to them proposing confirmation of the reversal of credit and proposing levy of interest and imposition of penalty. The Asstt. Commissioner charged interest of Rs. 6,15,495/- holding that although for the period prior to 11.5.01, the provisions of Section 11AB for levy of interest can be invoked only if there is any fraud/collusion/suppression of facts etc., after the amendment of Section 11AB on 11.5.01, interest can be leviable even in the absence of any fraud/collusion/suppression of facts etc. lie, however, dropped the proposal for penal action. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the levy of interest; hence the appeal before the Tribunal.2. We have heard both sides. The provisions for levy of interest are not applicable to cases where the duty had became payable or ought to have bee...

Maize Products and Anil Starch Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT419Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the Stay Petitions are being disposed of together as the issue involved in both of them is identical. The dispute is as to whether the applicants' product namely - Anhydrous Dextrose IP/BP/USP - is properly classifiable under Heading No. 29. 13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or the same would be classifiable under Heading No. 17.02 as claimed by the applicants/appellants.2 . It is seen that in one of the proceedings, the original adjudicating authority has accepted the applicants/appellants stand and held the goods to be classifiable under Chapter 17. However, for the subsequent period in which the demand has been confirmed, the goods were held to be classifiable under heading 29.13. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned Order has disposed of the appeal filed by the appellants against the second Order as well as by the Revenue against the first Order of the Assistant Commissioner holding the classification in favour of the revenue by holding that the goods are ...

Picasso Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT214Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant situated at Bombay imported 10,000 piece of electric brick games at Chennai Air Cargo Complex declaring a value which was rejected and loaded. Commissioner (appeals) set aside the order of enhancement of value. Consequently appellant was entitled to refunds.2. Deputy commissioner refunds, called for triplicate copy of B.E. and the books of accounts to rule out unjust enrichment. The appellants produced the following documents.(g) Bill of Entry along with purchase order, proforma invoice, commercial invoice, packing list, Airway bill and documents arrival notice dated 29.1.98. "Assessable value declared in the above Bill of Entry is Rs. 241,188/- but value adopted is Rs. 7,50,000. Duty paid on the adopted assessable value is Rs. 3,51,751. Duty per piece work out to Rs. 35.18 (approx.).From the sales invoice for B/E No. 1771/9.1.98 produced by your consultant the loss incurred by you works out to Rs. 2,77,132 which is given below:-_______________________________________...

Bharat Chemicals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT568Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Paracetamol. It paid excise duty at the rate of 20% Ad-valorem on some consignments which were exported.These payments were from Modvat account (RG 23-A). The rate adopted was incorrect because under Notification No. 6/94 dated 1.3.94, the effective rate of duty had been fixed at 10%. The appellant was paying duty at the correct lower rate on goods which were cleared for home consumption. Subsequently, the appellant obtained rebate of the duty actually paid in respect of the exported consignments. In the proceedings under appeal before us, excise authorities have held that the appellant made excess debit in the Modvat account through payment of higher amount of duty and has ordered the recovery of the amount so excess debited. The present appeal challenges that finding.2. The contention of the appellant-exporter is that it is entitled to refund of duties of excise paid on the exported goods and the inputs used in the manufacture of exported materi...

Shi Vs. Hankar Plywood Ind. Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad.2. M/s. Shivshankar Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., the applicant, manufactures plywood, veneer and resin. The Commissioner's finding are that the applicant has undervalued and also clandestinely removed the above excisable goods. The modus adopted by the applicant, according to the Commissioner, is to remove excisable goods sometimes by undervaluing them and on other occasions clandestinely without payment of duty and to show the sale proceeds thereof as receipts for sale of timber. In fact, according to the Commissioner, there was no sale of timber as during the course of investigation it was found that most of the firms/persons to whom timber is shown to have been sold are either nonexistent or have such premises where they could not have handled any timber. On the basis of various statements of employees, both former and current, balance shee...

D.P. Kholamkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ175CAT

1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant D.P. Kholamkar under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for quashing and setting the order of respondents imposing a penalty of 40% (forty per cent) cut in his monthly pension.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows. The applciant joined the Bombay Customs House as a Junior Clerk and thereafter was promoted as Senior Clerk. He was promoted as an Appraiser of Customs w.e.f.3.4.1995 and retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.7.1995. He was served with a chargesheet after a gap of more than one year of retirement levelling following charges: "(a) That while examining 10% of the packages (as per the examination order) all the 13 shipping bills mentioned therein, applicant had failed to mention in the examination report as to actual which packages were selected by him for physical examination. (b) That he failed to notice that non-declaration of market value in the exporters declaration pasted with ...

Kolhapur Engineering Association, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(102)FLR595]; (2004)IIILLJ854Bom; 2004(3)MhLj244

F.I. Rebello, J.1. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as reliefs sought in these petitions are the same. In all these petitions, the petitioner's are associations of small scale and Medium scale Industries and are challenging the Maharashtra Factories (4th amendment) Rules 1998. A few facts may now be set out:2. The Respondent pursuant to the power conferred on them under Section 112 of the Factories Act, 1948 and in exercise of their power; under Section 6 have made rules which are known as Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963. In the instant case, we are concerned with Rule 5. Before its amendment, Rule read as under:'Application for registration and grant of licence: (i) The occupier or manager of every factory coming within this scope of this Act after its commencement shall submit to the Chief Inspector an application in triplicate in Form 2 for the registration of the factory accompanied by an application in Form 3 for the grant of licence therefore for a pe...

Global Marketing Direct Limited Vs. Gtl Limited, Being a Company Regis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR409; 2004(3)ARBLR56(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj420; [2004]55SCL525(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner herein is the original defendant No. 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 50 of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1. The respondent NO. 2 is the original defendant No. 1. The suit by the respondent No. 1, principally seeks reliefs, that the agreements dated 9th November, 2000 and 18th January, 2001 and Arbitration Agreements contained therein are illegal, null and void ab initio or inoperative and/or incapable of being performed and other consequential reliefs. The Agreements are between the respondent No. 1 and Petitioner on the one hand and respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 on the other hand. An application for interim relief was moved by the respondent No. 1 to restrain the petitioner, and respondent No. 2 from in any manner commencing and/or in proceeding with and/or participating in any proceeding in a Court of law and/or any arbitration under the agreements dated 9th November, 2000 and 18th January, 2001 and also restraining them from acting upon or in...