Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Dinkar Ramchandra Morbale and ors. Vs. Mahadu Nathu Warke Since Deceas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR870; 2005(1)BomCR159; 2005(1)MhLj220

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, dated September 1, 1983 in Revision No. MRT-KP-168/82. Briefly stated, the land in question is agricultural land bearing No. RS 59/1B situated at village Kalankwadi, taluka Bhudargad, district Kolhapur. The respondents instituted suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Radhanagari, for possession of the suit land and for mesne profits on the assertion that they were the tenants in the suit land prior to the tillers' day, i.e., 1st April, 1957, on account of which they became deemed purchasers thereof and that they have purchased the same by paying the purchase price and certificate under Section 32M of the Act was also granted in their favour. In other words, it was stated by the respondents that they are the tenant purchasers in respect of the suit land, which was originally owned by one Smt. Janki...

R.K. Metal and Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No.PKA/377/M.III/2002 dated 22.7.2002 issued on 2.8.2002, by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty amount which was imposed under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from Rs. 1,75,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/-. They were also asked to pay interest on the over drawal / excess credit taken at the rate of 24% per annum under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Dr. D.N. Mishra, Advocate submitted that they had admittedly by mistake, taken modvat credit over and above the balance in their RG 23-A Part II account. This over drawal was during the period December, 1999 and January, 2000 and they had voluntarily in January, 2000, reversed the modvat credit, as by that time, they had sufficient balance in their modvat credit account.He therefore, submitted that since the excess modvat credit was reversed suo moto by the appellants themselves without being point...

Nav Kiran Packers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For the purpose of hearing the appeal, appellant was required to predeposit an amount of Rs. 94,223/-. Since the issue involved in this case lies in a short compass, I am deciding the main appeal itself by waiving predeposit of duty.2. Shri Manoj Arora, Director of M/s Nav Kiran Packers (Pvt.) Ltd. appears before me and submits that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected both the stay application and the main appeal and has decided in one order without asking them to predeposit any amount. Had there been any non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F in spite of notice then only the appeal could have been dismissed for non-compliance. I have heard the learned JDR Shri M.H. Shaikh.3. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the concluding para has given his finding as under: "Since the appellant had failed to produce the documentary evidence to satisfy the adjudicator about the duty paid character of the inputs on which...

Glencore (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Briefly the facts are that the appellants imported a consignment of polypropylene woven bags valued at Rs. 1,55,65,947/- and sought clearance of the said goods by filing three bills of entry all dated 5.8.1996. Polypropylene woven bags are supplied free of cost by M/s.Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. to one M/s. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Co. who, under a contract, was expected to supply Indian rice to them bagged in the bags. The contract however fell through and therefore the present appellants sought to re-export the polypropylene woven bags. The Commissioner in the adjudication order held the goods to be consumer goods not allowed to be imported without a public notice or a licence issued by the licensing authority. The Commissioner also rejected the plea of the appellants that under para 58 of the Import Policy 1992-97, the said goods can be imported. He also held that para 28 of the Import Export Policy 1992-97 does not allow importation of goods which are in the negative li...

Mukesh Marbles and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT98Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applicants had on 23-11-2001 filed a BE seeking clearance of Rough Marble Blocks declared at a value of Rs. 41,46,632/-. The clearance was not permitted as the declared value was not acceptable and the Import Licence, required to clear the subject goods were not provided. The goods were valued at US $ 300 PMT (CIF) in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with a redemption fine of Rs. 19.00 lakhs along with a penalty under Section 112(2) of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. Hence this appeal. (a) The reliance of the learned DR on the case of Mansingka Brothers, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 105 (T); Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1993 (66) E.L.T. 537 (S.C); Nanak Trading, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 381 (T); S.S.P. International, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 479; Sophisticated Marble CI/2745-2746/WZB/2003 (C1/3051, 3052/ WZB/03), dated 18-12-2003, dated 6-12-2003. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 353 (T) and on WP No. 39 of 2004 [2004 (166) E.L.T. 318 (Bom.)] i...

Karnataka Synthetics Procesors Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT661Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal filed by Karnataka Synthetics Processors (Export), Pvt Ltd, the appellants herein are directed against the order in Original No. 161/2001/CAC/CC/SPS dated 19.4.2001 (issued on 23.04.2001), by which the Commissioner has ordered confiscation of goods viz. 44 cartons of Dyed fabrics manufactured out of spun yarn from man-made fibber, with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs 50,000/-. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/- on the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are merchant exporters. Shipping Bill 1000014968 dated 28.3.200 for export of the goods were filed under exporter's signature by one M/s Bharat Overseas Communicators, CHA No. 11/658. The goods were consigned to M/s Oceana International Trading, PO Box No. 411, Dubai, UAE. On examination of the goods by the Docks staff at STP, it was found that the fabrics were stamped as 'Made in Shanghai-China" whereas in the shipping bill it was mentioned as "Made in India"...

Bright Brothers Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT69Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are an assessee engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Moulded articles supplied to various OE manufacturers and their Director. They are aggrieved by the demands of duties made on the assessee along with penalties and interest & penalty under Rule 209A on the Director, consequent to a proceedings initiated.2. A notice was issued to the assessees, factory at Tarapur and its Director, as the assessee had received 60% of the Cost of Development of Moulds for Safari Vehicles clash board and 50% for the rear bumper from M/s TELCO. As per agreement, these chargers was recovered on debit notes and worked out Rs. 10,04,32,672/- as prescribed in Annexure B to the notice. The agreements provided for 2.5% of the cost of the Mould out of the share of the assessee, to be absorbed by the assessee and he was to recover the remaining 15% by amortization on to price of 50,000 pieces cleared as regards Rear Bumper 50% share was required to be absorbed no amortization was stipulated.3....

Shri Amar Lulla and Cipla Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT466Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides at length. The appellant company, M/s Cipla Limited, developed a new drug named "Deferiprone" for treatment of Thalassemia and after successful clinical trials, the results of which were monitored by the Drugs Controller, obtained a licence to manufacture and market the same subsequently. It is not in dispute that after approval by the Drugs Controller, M/s Cipla regularly manufactured and marketed the drug on payment excise duty on the same.The impugned order relates to the period during which M/s Cipla manufactured and supplied the drug for clinical trials free of cost.The question that has been raised in this appeal is whether such manufacture and supply attracts central excise duty. It has been contended on behalf of M/s Cipla that during the impugned period, they had no licence from the Drugs Controller to manufacture and sale the drug and hence it was not marketable. They further contend that all the new drugs have to necessarily undergo successful clinical t...

Unitech Prefab Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC588

1. Heard both sides and considered the matter which is common in all these appeals i.e. whether a mixture of cement, sand and stone aggregates, to specific parameters and taken to site in special trucks where it is mixed with water and plasticizer would be chargeable to duty as 'Ready Mix Concrete' classifiable under heading 38.23 prior to 1.3.97 and thereafter under 3824.20. These appeals are being disposed by this common order.2. The issue of Ready Mix Concrete now classified under 38.23 or it being not levied to duty under Central Excise Act 1944 prior to 1.3.97, when a specific entry was introduced in Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 schedule under heading 3824.20 is no longer res- integer . The issue having been settled in favour of the assesses by the decision in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (2001 (138) ELT 911 (T) & the appeal against this decision dismissed by Supreme Court is reported in 2001 (132) ELT 4106. Therefore all appeals, as regards demands up to 1.3.97 are t...

Amrit Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT754Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The duty and penalty imposed under the impugned orders ere as follows:----------------------------------------------------Sr.Appeal No. Duty PenaltyNo.---------------------------------------------------1) E/1926/04 15,66,76/862.00 30,00,000.00 + 10,90,41,825.00---------------------------------------------------2) E/1927/04 19,05,89,577.00 35,00,000.00 + 13,24,73,244.00 2. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned advocate states that no deposits have been made so far against the duty quantified and the penalty imposed.The main issue involved in these two appeals relates to the appellants clearing the impugned goods without payment of duty for export but not submitting any proof of export. Even today, the appellants are not in a position to submit any proof of export.3. The learned advocate for the appellants states that the appellants have made a claim for duty exemption under Notification No. 125/84-C.E.dtd.26/05/1984 but the same has not been considered by the Adjudicating Com...