Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Jaydeep Singh Revubha Vaghela Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai

1. During the search of the premises of M/s. Panchvati Auto Garage, Ahmedabad, a foreign brand Legend Honda Car of 1993 model was seized by the officers. Investigations revealed that the appellant had purchased the said car from one Shri Vijay Kumar Bhandari, Ahmedabad, on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide demand draft dated 12-6-2000. Shri Vijay Kumar Bhandari had purchased the car from Mrs. Kajalaben D. Patel of Ahmedabad, who in turn had purchased the same from Shri Sudhir Nanavati of Ahmedabad. Shri Sudhir Idravadan Nanavati had purchased the car from Shri Dilip Kumar Chaturbhai Vesvkar.2. Inasmuch as the department could not locate the original importer of the car on the address given in the registration, it was doubted that the car was smuggled. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated, which culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confiscating the car with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs in...

Pioneer Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT506Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants in E/479/2004 is M/s. Pioneer Industries Vasai (East) & E/481/04 M/s. Seven Seas Corporation of Vasai (East). Appellants are in the business of manufacturing & selling of Mild Steel Wool; they also sell, remove M.S. Scrap & dust. Both appellants are in the third round of litigation. Before the CCE (Appeals) having been directed by this Tribunal twice for de novo decision. Both units are exempted from Central Excise Control having a turnover of less than Rs. 30 lakhs.They were what are commonly termed as declarant units and had filed the relevant declaration.2. On 11-11-97, it appears a tempo carrying the Steel Wool was intercepted. The first & second copies of documents covering the consignment were verified by the officers. They visited the premises and conducted enquiries. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty on the allegation that there were clandestine removal, as per the statements of Dinesh Magia & Hitesh Ajmera. The duty demands were c...

K.C. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT230Tri(Mum.)bai

1 Appellants are an EOU who have been charged with unaccounted production and non-duty payment clearance of MMF, and an domestic traffic area unit (DTA unit) working on hand processing exemption, partner of the EOU firm; proprietor of DTA unit & an owner of Tempo No.MH-04-S-4080 who are aggrieved by an order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II.1.2 It appears on the basis of a specific information the officers of Central Excise Head Quarters Mumbai-II intercepted a tempo loaded with processed fabrics being registration No. MH-04-S-4080 on Eastern Express Highway near Ghatkopar on 16-1-2001 & on interrogation of the driven & a worker/loader found in the tempo admitting the goods were loaded at the premises of M/s. Girish Textiles Industries at Tank Road, Nr. R.R. Paints Bhandup (West) an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of processed Man made Fabrics & they were cleared from the EOU without any duty paying challans/documents. The officers took the tempo to the...

Mitra Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(204)ELT144Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 These applications and appeal and cross objection were heard and are being disposed by this common order.1.2 Appellants are an assessee under Central Excise Act, 1944 and were liable to discharge duty under the provisions of Section 3A of the Act, based on capacity of the furnaces so used. The proper officer determined the capacity and intimated the same to the appellants who did not protest or filed any appeal against the said letter of intimation of the capacity determined. Consequent demands were worked out and confirmed. Hence these appeals by the assessee against the said amounts, now demanded with penalty and interest under the provisions of rule 96ZO(3) ; also a belated appeal against the letter of determination of capacity, with application for condonation of delay; an application of additional grounds is also filed. Revenue has filed cross objection in appeal no E/3461/03 on demands made. Appeal E/252/05 is against the capacity determination.2.1 After hearing both sides a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shah Textile Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 These appeals were heard together as the issue herein pertain to classification of "dyed D/C book binding cloth" manufactured i.e.whether it will fall under chapter 52.00 as found by Commissioner appeals, while confirming the finding of Assistant Commissioner or should be classified under heading 5901.10 of Central Excise Tariff 1985 (herein after referred to as CETA 1985 for short) 1.2 The findings of this Tribunal vide order no A/291 to 300 (WZB/12004-CII dtd 24/5/04) in this very appeals was challenged in the Hon. Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application no 9428 of 2004 vide order dtd 3//8/2004, after considering the plea of appellants as regards apex court, decision in case of CCE v. Sushma Textiles Pvt Ltd (2004 (167) ELT 487 SC) & it to govern the issue herein which are mixed question of law & fact disposed the application with the direction- "Since that decision was not available when the matter was heard before the Tribunal, it would be in the faintness of t...

Weizmann Ltd. and Cox and Kings Vs. Cc (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT278Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard the matter at length. We find from the referral order dated 29.12.2004 that the referral Bench has come to a decision that the appellants have no locus standi to claim the impugned currency seized from the Bank following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal listed below:-Wall Street Finance Ltd. v. CCE (Prev.), Mumbai - 2002(147)ELT 112R.R.Sen & Brothers v. CC, Mumbai These two decisions were rendered respectively on 3.2.2000 and 20.11.2000. The matter has been referred for decision by a Larger Bench as the referral Bench noticed a contrary decision rendered subsequently on 2.2.2001 in the case off B.P. Nayak v. CC(Prev.), Mumbai - 2001(136)ELT 604.2. The facts are not in dispute. Sale proceeds of foreign currency smuggled out of India were deposited by M/s Tiruchi Enterprises in their Bank account. Against such deposits, they obtained pay orders and bought more foreign currency from the appellants for the purpose of smuggling out. The appellants had no knowledge...

Mittal Texo Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order, vide which duty of Rs. 2,08,451/- has been confirmed against the manufacturing unit along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed on Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Director of the factory under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 23-12-95 and during the course of search, one small note book was recovered from the cupboard in the Director's office. Scrutiny of the said note book revealed that the same contained entries of clearances of texturised yarn. Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Director of the company, in his on the spot statement deposed that they had cleared 4324 kgs of texturised yarn valued at Rs. 4,53,154/- in the open market on different dates as shown in the note book without payment of duty and without issuing any Excis...

Ccex, Mumbai, Ccex, Vadodara-ii Vs. B. Meraram and Sons, Bee Bee Crown ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three departmental appeals have been listed for admission as the amounts involved are below Rs. 50,000/- in each case. I find that these appeals have been tiled under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There seems to be a misconception on the part of Registry in listing these appeals for admission as restriction of Rs. 50,000/- is applicable under the 2nd proviso to appeals filed under Section 35B(1) and not to appeals filed by the Department under Section 35B(2). Accordingly, it is directed that regular hearing in appeal Nos.E/2728/03 & E/3402/03 may be fixed in their turn.2. As regards appeal no. E/2346/03 is concerned, there is a request from both sides that the appeal be taken up today itself. The impugned order-in-appeal has been passed by the lower appellate authority rejecting the department's appeal on the ground that an officer in the rank of Dy. Commissioner has filed the said appeal though the order-in-original was passed by the Addl. Commissioner....

Priyadarshini Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri Gheewala, learned Consultant for the appellants states that the impugned amount of duty was paid on 16-3-2000 and claim for abatement was filed on 22-3-2000 on the ground that the factory was closed. The said claim for abatement was considered and allowed on 8-10-2001. Shri Gheewala states that the credit of the impugned amount was taken by the appellant immediately on receipt of the order of abatement on 8-10-2001 itself though he is not in a position to show any documents in this regard. This appeal has been filed for claiming interest on the impugned amount on the ground that the abatement was allowed after some delay.2. I find that the lower appellate authority has rejected the claim of interest on the ground that there is no legal provision for grant of such interest. I am of the view that the appellants became entitled to refund only after the abatement was allowed on 8-10-2001. Since the learned Consultant for the appellants himself states that credit ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Id. DR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Udhay Joshi, Id. Advocate, appearing for the respondents.2. As per facts on records, Core Healthcare Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In their declarations filed under Rule 173-B, the respondents have classified their products, cleared for home consumption under Heading 3003.20 chargeable to nil rate of duty.However, in respect of the products being exported by them, the classification has been claimed as Patent and Proprietary medicines falling under Heading 3003.10. Accordingly, the respondents cleared the said goods on payment of duty after availing the benefit of Modvat credit.3. Proceedings were initiated proposing classification of the goods under Chapter 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duty and as...