Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Diamant Boart Petroleum India Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant was an 100% EOU set up. They were permitted by the Ministry of Industry to close the EOU operations on condition of Re-export of the entire capital goods imported to set up the 100% EOU.They were also requested to pay all custom / excise duties on the stocks of raw material, components, consumables, spares as well as finished goods with penalty and other charges. Pursuant to the permission, they executed a Bond and a Shipping Bill was filed to export the entire machinery imported for setting up the 100% EOU from Customs Port, Nhava Sheva in 38 cases. The cases were removed from Bond at Goa to Nhava Sheva Post bonded warehouse. Out of these 38 cases, 35 were shipped, remaining 3 cases consisting of set of Punches and crack detector were stolen from the custody of Central Warehousing Corporation Kalamboli Warehouse at Nhava Sheva Post, Police complaint made, thereof are not known.2. The adjudicating authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Marmagoa, passed an order...

Classique Enterprises, Empress Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC564

1. (a) Facts briefly, are, 41 packages arrived from overseas by Airmail. They were intercepted by the officers of Air Intelligence Unit on 14/15.5.2002 before they were presented by the Postal Authorities to the Proper Officer for assessment. Subsequently, only 27 packages were taken up for investigation. These 27 Airmail packages were consigned to four firms namely M/s May Flower, Impex, M/s Empress International, M/s Classique Enterprises, M/s Berlin Fashions. These firms are managed by Shri Shashi Arora as proprietor/partner. The goods contained in the Airmail package were seized for being misdeclared/not declared under panchanama on 21.5.2002 and after they were inventorised and valued.The goods consigned to M/s May Flower Impex were valued at Rs. 27,90,380 CIF, Rs. 19,80,420 CIF, respect of goods consigned to M/s Express International, Rs. 27,56,760 CIF and Rs. 18,86,805 CIF in respect of goods consigned to M/s Classique Enterprises and M/s Berlin Fashions respectively. The goods...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner, who had dropped the four demands issued on the Respondents for having manufactured and cleared Fork Lift Trucks & parts thereof & furniture to an 100% EOU under exemption Notification Nos. 123/81, dated 2-6-81; 57/94, dated 1-3-94 & 1/95, dated 4-1-95. (i) Notifications 57/94 & 1/95 included fork lift & spares thereof, however Notification 123/81 did not cover these goods. Exemption was for goods used in connection with the manufacture & packaging & fork lifter do not fall under that. Therefore clearance of 'fork lift & spares' prior to 1-3-94 was not eligible without duty.2. Notification 123/81 in Para 2(j) of the Appendices provides how 'Duty leviable on excisable goods not duly accounted for as having been utilised in the manufacture and packaging of goods for exports is to be dealt with. It casts an onus as responsibility on the Central Excise Officer in charge of the 100% EOU in Para (g). The de...

Pfizer Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC372

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding a duty demand of Rs. 3,46,31,643/- on the product "Salinomycin 350 Mycelia' as a result of classifying the same under CET Sub-Heading 2941.90 as an antibiotic , rejecting the claim of the assessee for classification as animal feed pre-mix under CET Sub-Heading 2302.00 and holding that the declared value of the whole product forms basis of payment of duty, rejecting the appellants contention that they were entitled to reduce the assessable value by 50% as the potency level of active mass of the product in the total dry mass varied by 50%. "Broth is obtained by a fermentation process using various inputs such as soya bean meal, soya bean oil, glucose, calcium hydroxide, yeast; the fermented broth is subjected to treatment with alkli and acid; the treated broth is filtered on rotary vacuum filter; the Wet Salinomycin Mycelium obtained from the rotary vacuum filter is dried; the filterate...

Vidyut Metallics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are an assessee company hereafter referred as M/s. VML its employers and while duty and equivalent penalty has been demanded on the assessee company, the employers have been imposed penalties under Rule 209 A.2. a) On 03.03.97, Preventive officers on checks seized 8 drums of CRSS Strips loaded on a Tempo standing in the assessees factory on the grounds that those goods were not accounted in the production record and there was two invoices bearing the same numbers 1041 dated 03.03.97. Therefore they alleged the goods was to be cleared clandestinely with out due discharge of duty and a show cause invoice was issued dated 29.08.97 for the same.b) The Anti Evasion officers under took further enquiry which resulted in another Show Cause notice dated 26.05.98, to M/s. VML demanding (i) duty on CRSS strips and other remaining parts totally valued at Rs. 1,13,53,482/- during the period December 1994 to January 1997 without declaring and paying duty or under cover of invoices and...

Ajanta Watch Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT350Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant is engaged in manufacturing of Quartz Analogue Watches.They import watch components, movement, for the said activity & placed orders with one M/s. Ravi Diffuser. Goods were despatched by Air Cargo and B/E was filed in Ahmedabad for clearance under a Quantity Based Advance License on Release Advise obtained from Kandla Custom House.2. On examination, the goods were (SIC) not as per the invoice. By letters dated 14.03.98 & 17.3.98, the supplier explained that the goods were an incorrect shipment.3. Since only components and raw materials i.e. 10,000 pieces of Quart/ Analogue Watch movements like button cell, hour wheel key stem, fixing washer, handset, cases, dial, knobs and metal bands separately were permissible for import and as goods under import was found to be complete watches and clocks in SKD condition & the 14 pcs. of Mechanical Movements imported, they were not permissible to be imported without a licence, the clearance of benefit of Notfn. No. 149/95 ...

Commissioner of Customs (i) Vs. Allied Fibres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commission on who ordered dropping of the show cause Notice after coming to the findings - i) the proposal to add know how fee, is not upheld, since the payment of the same was tentative and in fact not proved to be made. ii) As the appropriate authority has extended the EOU validity period upto 31.12.99, the goods would be still be within the warehousing period as a plea, accepted. iii) As regards contravention of Policy by no Inspection Certificate produced, the plea that it was not mandatory was accepted as party had opportunity to get the same when goods were cleared exbond. iv) As regards seeking bonding, without EOU status declarations was held to be not effecting a liability to duty at this stage.2. Considering the grounds taken and an finding that the entire import was not effected and ordered & promoted and hearing the DR, the appellants opting not to remain present, inspite of notice for the hearing, it is held - i) Valuation ...

Shri. V. Raghavan Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant employed as a cleaner with Air India at Sahar Airport, Bombay was imposed a penalty of Rs. 25000 under the provision of Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act 1962 as the Commissioner found him to be involved in the smuggling of 24 gold bars of 10 lakhs each seized on 29.01.1997 by Air intelligence officer of interception of Shri P.N. Sugunan a cleaner employed with Air India on board the Air Craft AI-475, NARMADA which had earlier arrived from Singapore Via Madras. The gold confiscated was found in a brown white packet in the under wear of said Shri Sugunan. Shri Sugunan informed the officers in presence of panchas and Air India Security Officers that he had collected the packet from back rest of Seat No. 7-D of the Aircraft & had concealed it in his under wear. In his statement, he discharged further that he was informed, by the appellant herein, that both of them have to attend to AI 475. While passengers were alighting from the aircraft he was informed that ...

Technova Imaging Systems Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)2SOT116(Mum.)

This appeal of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 30-3-1998.1. 'The learned CIT(A), hereinafter referred to as CIT(A), erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 90,520 representing fees paid to the Registrar of Companies and stamp duty in connection with issue of bonus shares.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 53,844 as entertainment expenses and erred in approving the basis adopted by, the assessing officer.3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure on presentation articles carrying no logo or any insignia of the appellant in excess of the limit prescribed in rule 6B of the Act was disallowable and thereby, erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,433.4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of' Rs. 1,00,000 as 'contingent expenses'.5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,59,419 by holding it to be interest paid on borrowals for payment of tax.6. The learned CIT(A) e...

Madhao S/O Somaji Sarode Vs. Jotiba Dhyan Upasak Shikshan Sanstha and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR684; 2004(3)MhLj1078

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar; learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri D. P. Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 4. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The present petition challenges the order, dated 17th January, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in Appeal No. STN/227/1996, vide which the appeal of the petitioner/appellant has been rejected.3. At the hearing of the petition, Shri A. S. Chandurkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner restricted his prayer for remand of the matter. Shri A. S. Chandurkar has raised two fold submissions. Firstly, that having entertained the appeal on merits, it was not permissible for the learned Tribunal to reject the same on the ground of delay. And if the learned Tribunal comes to a finding that the appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation, it...