Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhairavnath Textile Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal was heard on 18.3.2004 when Shri S.S.Bhagat, learned S.D.R. and Shri Hardik Modh, learned advocate were present on behalf of the applicant Commissioner and the respondents respectively. On 19.3.2004, no further hearing took place and Shri S.S.Bhagat, learned S.D.R. intimated that he had not been able to lay his hands on any further case laws on this subject.2. Shri Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the respondents takes a preliminary objection that the present appeal has been authorised to be filed by the Applicant Commissioner Shri Jeet Ram Kait against the order in appeal which was passed by none other than himself earlier as Commissioner (Appeals). He cites the decision in the case of CCE V/s.Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. - 1989 (44) ELT 667 (Tri.) wherein it is held that the Member of the Board can not review an order passed by him in his earlier capacity as Collector unless new facts or material has been rendered which would have made the order illegal or improper. ...

Shri Ranjeet Sanghvi Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT375Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant's appeal is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts are that, M/s.BVL Offset Printers & M/s. Mamta Printers, Mumbai had imported certain second hand printing machines, the OGL import of which was permissible subject to the actual user condition. On investigation, it was established that, the importers had violated actual users condition by selling off the machines to domestic buyers. The appellant Shri Ranjeet Sanghvi, who is the proprietor of M/s. Sanghvi Enterprises, is a clearing agent (CHA). It was stated in defence that the appellant was concerned with importation only for the purpose of handling, packing, clearing, forwarding and delivery of the said machinery on behalf of the importers. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said penalty was imposed on the ground that imported printin...

Marigold Coatings Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT326Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were denied modvat credit vide order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that the appellants had taken modvat credit against the gate passes which have been endorsed three times by different consignees. The Assistant Collector, while deciding the show cause notice proposing the denial of credit held that there was no irregularity in taking the credit and he dropped the proceedings. The revenue challenged the said order and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed the findings of the Assistant Collector and set aside the said order.2. The appellants are in appeal challenging the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The short issue involved in this case is as to whether or not the modvat credit can be permitted on the basis of the gate passes which have been endorsed more than two times. Admittedly in this case, the gate passes in question have been endorsed thrice, before the consignment reached the appellant's premises. There...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Hindustan Composites Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a revenue appeal directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The show cause notice issued to the respondents alleged that the respondents have taken credit of CVD on the basis of improper documents and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 57G read with Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules 1944. It was mentioned that in the month of September 1999 they have availed the modvat credit of CVD amounting to Rs. 2,05,074/- on the basis of certificate dated 25/08/99 of the assessee, endorsed by the Customs authorities at Mumbai. This certificate did not appear to be in accordance with the Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Further, it is also alleged that the CVD was paid on demand by Customs authority for excess import of material under DEEC scheme and hence the same cannot be utilised as modvat credit as per Rule 57E(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the show cause notice and accordingly confirmed th...

Khetan Brothers, Shri Kirti Doshi Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant appeals are directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The appellants have invited my attention to the last para of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on page 14 thereof, which is re-produced hereunder:- "From the above findings, I conclude that consignment actually moved from the godown at Kandla. In view of my conclusion above, proposal in SCN regarding considering invoices under Rule 57GG as 'invalid' for the purpose of Rule 57G(3), expungment of Phenol quantity found short and revocation of Registration Certificate is not warranted".4. The reading of the above conclusions lead one to understand the order to mean that the charges levelled against the appellants in the show cause notice were held to be unsubstantiated.5. Notwithstanding this finding, in the order portion of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed penalty on the three appellants. The case against the appellants was that, the import material...

Johnson and Johnson Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rohan Shah, learned Advocate and Shri K.L Bablani, learned Jt.C.D.R., we find that the total amount of duty confirmed against the appellant is to the tune of Rs. 1,01,63,421/- (Rs. One Crore One Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty One Only) with penalty of identical amount. The said amount has been confirmed by classifying the appellant's product Unsterlised Absorbable Catgut Sutures under the Heading 4201.90 by rejecting the appellant's claim of classifying the same under Chapter Heading 05.01.2. Shri Rohan Shah, learned Advocate fairly agrees that the issue is no more res integra and stands decided by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the appellants' own case reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 729 (Tri.-Mumbai). However, he submits that the Tribunal has also allowed them the modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs and used in the said final product. He draws our attention to another order No.C-II/647/WZB/2003 dtd. ...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Shri G.H. Singhvi and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC25

1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Konkan Synthetics Fibres (proprietor Century Enka Ltd. hereinafter referred to as M/s. CEL), C-61, MIDC, Mahad (hereinafter referred to as M/s. KSF) held a Central Excise Registration for manufacture of partially oriented yarn (POY) and different types of processed yarn (PY) falling under CH.54.02 and 55.05 of CETA, 1985 respectively in a single composite plant. They were availing Modvat/CENVAT credit and paying Central Excise duty on ad-valorem basis. They submitted an application dtd. 16.3.2000 and requested for bifurcation of the existing manufacturing site at Plot No. C-61 MIDC, Mahad into two parts. According to them, such bifurcation was necessitated to implement product group management concept and to give greater flexibility and more freedom in decision making, manufacturing as well as marketing of the products. They also requested for separate Central Excise Registration of these two premises to be carved out of the original site. ...

Dattu Shamrao Valake, Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004BomCR(Cri)947

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an Appeal against conviction filed by the appellants (here-in-after referred to as the accused) seeking to quash and set aside the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 24.06.1987 in Sessions case No. 35 1985, by which accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life. By the said Judgment and other, accused Nos. 1 & 3 have alternatively being convicted for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, individually and each of them is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Accused No. 4 has been alternatively convicted for an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay & fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer further RI for 15 days. Accused No. 1 had also been convicted for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentence...

Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Camoron Finance and Investments Vs. Vira ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR469; 2004(3)MhLj306

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out for the following main prayer:(b) that the Auction Purchaser be allowed to get the Conveyance Deed registered in the name of their nominee/sister company viz. M/s Magnificent Construction Pvt. Ltd. having their registered office at 12/2. T.N.T. Market, Indore 452001 and it's corporate office at A-53, MIDC Road No. 1, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093 and the Hon'ble Commissioner be directed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of M/s Magnificent Constructions Pvt. Ltd.'2. By order dated 9th March, 2004, it was directed that the applicants to clarify on Affidavit whether it's nominee/sister company viz. M/s Magnificent Construction Private Limited is actually the sister concern of M/s Zoom Developers Private Limited or not.3.By Affidavit in Rejoinder dated 17th March, 2004, pursuant to the above direction dated 9th March, 2004, the applicant placed on record additional material in support of their main prayer clause, as reprod...

Kirti Kumar Narulla Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj505

S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition is filed challenging the order of detention dated 18th January 2003 issued against the Rajinder Narula under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act').2. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai had, on receiving the information, kept watch over the activities of the passengers in transit lounge of CST Airport, Mumbai on the night of 31st July 2002. The detenu who had to go to Ahmedahad had come from Delhi to Bombay by Indian Airlines flight. He was apprehended when he handed over foreign currency of 700 notes of US $ in denomination of 100 totalling to US $ 70,000 equivalent to Indian Rs. 35 lakhs along with four mobile phones to one Tilak Raj Sharma in the transit lounge at Sahar Airport that night. The detenu had come from Delhi to Bombay by Indian Airlines flight and was to go to Ahmedabad from Bom...