Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Charotar Tobacco Co. and Patel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC444

1. Heard both sides and perused the case records including cited case laws. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the impugned Tobacco sold by the appellants in new packets would be classified as branded Tobacco. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has adequately dealt with various issues raised by the appellants in the impugned order, in which he has observed as follows:- I have carefully considered the record, I find that branded unmanufactured tobacco was seized from both the party's on 16/03/95. They are also asked vide department's letter dt.16/03/95 to get themselves registered and to pay duty. Both appellants vide their letters dt.27/03/95 informed the department that they had stopped printing any brand name on the packets since 16/03/95 and that they would not put any brand, in future and hence they were not liable to pay C. Ex. Duty. Vide the same letters they had also sought for permission to remove the seized tobacco without payment of duty, by repacking in...

Vasundhara Containers and Pipes Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC246Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a demand of Rs. 10,01,374/- together with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, on plastic granules arising in the course of manufacture of PVC suction hose pipes which are exempted from payment of duty under notification 14/92-CE dated 1.3.1992, and imposed a penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.3. We find that the conntention of the appellants that PVC compound is the product initially manufactured by them by conversion of plain PVC powder into coloured PVC powder with addition of additives, stabiliser etc. and not PVC granules, has not been controverted by the Revenue. In the light of this factual position which remains unrebutted, the claim of the appellants that the product on which duty has been demanded is eligible to the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Sr. No. 3 of the table annexed to notification 14/92, has great force. Although the benefit of thi...

Shri Mukesh K. Shah Vs. the Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92ITD349(Mum.)

1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee for the Asst. Year 1998-99. The appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIII at Mumbai dated 19-5-2000 and arises out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The first issue raised in this appeal is that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the deduction Under Section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at 75 per cent of the net remuneration of Rs. 96,143 after deducting total expenses incurred from the gross remuneration received from M/s. Citizen Watch Co. Ltd. Hongkong.3. The Assessee having received remuneration for services rendered outside India had claimed the deduction available Under Section 80RRA.The Assessing Officer while computing the deduction adjusted the expenditure incurred by the Assessee against the receipt of remuneration and only the net of the remuneration was considered. This was confirmed by the CIT(A), against which the present appeal is before us.4. The learned Counsel appea...

York Exports Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT175Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the impugned order Passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), whereby the two shipments effected by the exporter for fulfillment of export obligation against an advance licence were rejected. Consequently there was a short shipment with reference to the required export obligation. The rejection of the shipment was on the ground that the test report of the samples drawn from the expert consignments revealed presence of acrylic fibre, besides Mohair and Polyester, which the Commissioner held to be not permissible. This was also treated as mis-declaration of export goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act 1962, and thereby the importers were held liable for penalty under Section 114(1) of the Act. Though the goods were not physically available for confiscation (having been physically exported long back), the Commissioner ordered that, these goods may be deemed to have been redeemed on a r...

Suvarna Fibrotech Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT184Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time, on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,22,824/- and penalty of equal amount, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeal itself and hence after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to dispose of the appeals itself with the consent of both sides.2. Against the confirmation of duty demand, on the ground that the appellants recovered charges under the guise of installation charges, which were required to be included in the assessable value and imposition of penalty by the Jt. Commissioner of Central Excise the appellants filed appeal along with the application for waiver of pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order dated 28-5-2003 the Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs within 15 days from the receipt of the order. On 16-6-2003 the appellants sought modification on the ground of financial hardship; the applicati...

Gujarat Supreme Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara. (i) Confirming duty demand of Rs. 4,19,640.21 on HDPE fabrics laminated and unlaminated, cleared by the appellants herein to M/s. Ravneet Packaging Enterprises and M/s. Super Star Packaging Enterprises during the years 1991-92 and 1992-93, (ii) Directing recovery of modvat credit of Rs. 5,194.00 on inputs/raw materials (LDPE granules and master batch) found short on which modvat credit was availed.(iii) Ordering recovery of duty of Rs. 10,179/- on HDPE waste, and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants herein and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri R.F. Tharani, Managing Director.2. None appears for the appellant inspite of notice; we find that this order has come up for hearing several times and the appellants have never been represented. From this it is obvious that they are not interested in pursuing the matter . We therefore heard the Ld. DR and perused the records and passed the foll...

Shri Zaheer Abbas Obaid Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai dated 23.12.96. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner had confiscated the entire quantity of wrist watches and wrist watch movements imported by the appellant under Section 111(d)(1) and (m) of the Customs Act. A personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Ac t. The appellant challenged the above order on the ground that the entire case is foisted on him and the mis-declaration of the goods alleged is totally without any basis. He contends that the valuation made under impugned order is on the higher side and the view taken by the Commissioner for absolute confiscation is unsustainable.2. It is alleged by the department that acting on information officers of the Customs Commissionerate (Preventive) located the baggages arrived from Dubai via Muscat by Oman Airways flight No. WY-800 on 14.4.96 at Sahar International Airport, Mumbai. ...

The Executive Engineer Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby Central Excise duty of Rs. 68,68,868/- has been confirmed against them, with imposition of penalty of equivalent amount.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Pipes of required size for captive consumption i.e. for laying the same at sites for completion of irrigation scheme. The pipes are being manufactured by independent contractors out of - steel plates supplied by the appellants. On the basis of cost audit conducted by a cost auditor appointed by the Commissioner under Section 14A of the Act, (Central Excise Act 1944) it was revealed that the value of the said pies has been under declared. Consequently the value was enhanced resulting into confirmation of differential duty demand as mentioned above.3. The Commissioner had considered the fact that the appellant is a state government undertaking. Though the pipes are manufactured through the contractor...

Solly Perumal Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant herein Director of Clearing Agent Firm, M/s. Trinity Shipping & Allied Services (P) Ltd. challenges the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Kandla dated 28.4.95 under which a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on him under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The proceedings related to import of consignments of dyes by Brij Mohan Sood, Proprietor of M/s. Varun International Trading Co., Kandla through M/s.Trinity Shipping & Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. The first consignment was 400 drums of dyes yellow and dyes blue declared to be 8000 Kgs. valued at US $ 1.70 per Kg. CIF covered by Bill of Entry No.14315 dated 30th July, 1993 which was cleared. The second consignment was 480 drums of dyes of colours of red, blue, yellow and violet of a total declared with of 10 MT at a CIF unit price of US $ 1.70 per Kg., detained under Bill of Entry No. 3154 dated 7.6.91. The first consignment when weighed was found to have total weight of 10 MT as against declared we...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kada S.S.K. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT471Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal on valuation of molasses sold by lender, should have been cleared on basis of costing when captively consumed or sold by tender and the Vasant Dada Sugar Institute, Pune's Chief Sugar Technologist has stated that cost of many action of molasses without adding any overheads is Rs. 852/- PMT and valuation in this case should be Rs. 1,000/- PMT.2. Commissioner (Appeals) has found that it is not the Revenues case that the price at which molasses were sold was not genuine, and once genuine sale price is available, comparable goods price can not be applied.3. Sale by tender, if the lender system is not found fault with would be contract prices and contract prices for sale are acceptable under Section 4(1)(a) value. When contracts between principal-to-principal and not otherwise impugned. These sales do not therefore require Rule 6 of Valuation Rules determinations as proposed. Nothing arises is found in the impugned order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). ...