Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Rasilaben H. Rathod Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1. The bunch of appeals have been filed against an order of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Gujarat, Ahmedabad dated 28.2.2001 ordering the confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962, of 500 Gold Bars bearing Foreign Companies marks and imposed penalties under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 as follows:(1) Shri Vijaya Dasrathbhai Patel Proprietor Rs. 50,00,000/- of M/s. Paras Bullion, Ahmedabad. (Rupees fifty lakhs only)(2) Shri Shailesh Ratilal Patel Proprietor Rs. 50,00,000/- of M/s. S.K Jewellers, Ahmedabad (Rupees fifty lakhs only)(3) Shri Devang Amrutlal Patel Rs. 50,000/- Proprietor of M/s. Patel Bullion, Ahmedabad (Rupees fifty thousand only)(4) Shri Natubhai Babubhai Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(5) Shri Jashwant Kanjibhai Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(6) Shri Arvindhvai Kantilal Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(7) Shri Bhikhabhai Tulsibhai Patel Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)(8) Smt. Rasilaben Harshadbhai R...

C.C.E. Vs. Shree Ram Textile and Processing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri N.V.B. Nair Id.JDR for the Revenue and Shri V.S. Sejpal, Id. Advocate for the Respondent.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the processing of textiles.Commissioner of Central Excise determined the Annual Production capacity for the year 1998-99 including the rail length of the galleries of stenter. The said fixation of annual capacity was the subject matter of several adjudication and appellate orders before the Commissioner and Tribunal, During the pendency of the disputes, duty was being paid by the respondents in accordance with the APC fined by the authorities. However, after multiple and parallel proceedings at various levels, the dispute on fixation of, APC was settled in favour of the assessee and consequently they became entitled to refund of excess duty paid by them during the period of dispute. The dis...

Parul Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are an assessee under Central Excise Act, 1944 inter alia engaged in the production and clearance of pesticide formulations classified under Heading 3808.10 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, (herein after referred to as CETA). These formulations were chargeable to nil rate under the Tariff up to 1.2.1994 and a duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem was leviable with effect from 1.3.1994. They complied with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, after 1.3.1994 and opted for Modvat credit benefits.2. The pesticide formulations are claimed to have a limited life and are received back from the dealer or depots to be reprocessed and upgrade it in quality, to meet the standards. On 1.3.1994, the officers visited the factory of the Appellant and recorded the stocks including formulations cleared at nil rate of duty, and subsequently received back for reprocessing. On 8.4.1994, a truck bearing No. DIG 8261 was loaded with pesticides manufactured and also c...

V.B. Bhatia and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (General)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide his impugned order, Commissioner of Customs has ordered for cancellation of CHA Licence of the appellant and has also confiscated security amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only).2. As per the facts on record, investigation conducted by the revenue in respect of the import of waste paper by M/s. Star Pulp and Paper Products, Jaipur during the year 1982-83, revealed that the said imported waste paper cleared at concessional rate of duty was meant for use in the factory for production of cardboard but the same was diverted to the local market and sold. Shri Dharam Prakash Singhal, Prop of Star Pulp in his statement, recorded during the investigation revealed that the imports and clearance of consignment was arranged by one Shri Tapan Kumar Banerjee. The said Shri T.K. Banerjee was introduced to Shri D.P. Singhal by one of Shri Jayantilal Patel, who financed the' import and also agreed to pay Rs. 300/- per MT to Shri T.K. Banerjee. It was also found that the imp...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT355Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) granting respondent's claim of interest on the refunded amount, revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Id. DR. Nobody is present for the respondent and have made a prayer to decide on merits.2. As per facts on record, respondent assessee was having two units i.e. unit No. I & II and was availing Modvat facility in both the units. However, credit accumulated in Unit No. I was utilised for payment of duty while making clearances from Unit No. II. During the period 9-6-96 to 18-7-96 total, of credit of Rs. 2,97,824 pertaining to Unit No. I was utilised by Unit No. II. On being pointed out by revenue that such inter-use of Modvat credit was not in accordance with law, duty was debited from PLA and refund of credit used for payment through RG 23A Part II was claimed. The said claim was made on 26-11-96 and was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner on 8-1-97. Accordingly respondent took credit in their Mod...

Mukul Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal is against the penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only) imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. As per the facts on records, the Officers of Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch of New Customs House, Bombay, detained sixteen export consignments of Printed Circuit Boards belonging to M/s. Hari Impex. The said consignments were covered by sixteen shipping bills under drawback claim. On investigation, it was found that the value of the goods declared by the said exporter was on the higher side.Statements of various persons were recorded on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against the exporter as also various other persons including the appellants herein.3. The case against the appellant is that he had aided and abetted mis-declaration of the value of the goods by the exporter M/s. Hari Impex. The adjudicating authority, while finding the appellant guilty of offence has recorded ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dhananjay Industrial Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present appeal of the revenue is as regards the correct classification of parts of DC power supply. Both the authorities below, after examining the issue, has held that since the parts are electrical transformers, static converters, inductors, etc., and the same are specifically mentioned against heading 8504.00, they would be properly classifiable under the said heading. Accordingly, both the authorities have rejected the revenue's stand of classifying the same under residuary heading 85.48.2. Revenue in their memo of appeal has referred to Section Note 2(a) to Section XVI. We find that in terms of the said section note, parts are required to be classified as separate goods, wherever they are specifically mentioned, as such, against a particular tariff entry.Heading 8504.00 specifically describes electrical transformers, static converters, inductors, etc. The revenue has not disputed that the goods in question are not transformers or converters. As such, we do n...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maruti Tube and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR584

1. As per facts on record, show cause notice raising demand of duty of Rs. 1,36,089.91 was issued against the respondents. The same was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, in the operative portion of the order, the amount was typed Rs. 13,856.70 instead of Rs. 1,36,089.91. On realizing the mistake, a corrigendum was issued after about a period of l 1/2 years, correcting the said mistake and observing that the duty amount of Rs. 13,856.70 should be read as Rs. 1,36,089.91. The respondent challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals), who observed that duty cannot be enhanced by the Assistant Commissioner after a period of 1 1/2A years, inasmuch as he does not have any powers to review his own order. Accordingly, he set aside the corrigendum. Being aggrieved with the said order, the revenue has filed the present appeal.2. After hearing the Ld. JDR, Shri R.B. Pardeshi, we find that the corrigendum is more in the nature of rectifying the typographical mistake in stea...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. R.S.R. Mohota Spg. and Wvg. Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal seeking to set aside the order of CCE (A), who has observed & ordered.- (a) Period involved in this cases 5/2002 to 3/2002 thus applicable notification for deemed credit in this case is 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1.3.2002 and not Notification No. 53/2001-C.E. (N.T.) as contended by the assessee at the time of personal hearing. (b) Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1.3.2002 allows deemed credit to textile unit, on the specified inputs and final products, inputs and final products were specified in the said notification. The department has not disputed that deemed credit taken on the inputs for manufacturing final products were not specified inputs and final products. There is no dispute about the amount of deemed credit availed by the assessee. (c) The Adjudicating authority disallowed deemed Cenvat credit on the grounds that the deemed Cenvat credit availed by the Assessee on gray fabrics received from Hastak Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ind. Who is an instit...

Zinal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the instant case, the Order-in-Original was passed on 18-9-2003 and copy of the same was received by the assessee on 25-9-2003. The appeal was filed within two (2) months period from the date of receipt of the order before the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Kalpana Complex, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, as indicated in the cover note of Order-in-original. Accordingly, the assessee filed the appeal at the given address on 14-11-2003 within a period of two (2) months as is evident from the copy of the postal acknowledgement. But, it appears that this appeal was to be filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kandla at Ahmedabad. As seen from the records, the appeal papers were routed from one place to another from the office of Navranpura, Ahmedabad to Rajkot and then to Jamnagar and finally to the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, on 9-2-2004. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, dismissed the appeal on the preliminary point that the appe...