Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Aspaq N. Ahmed Vs. State of Goa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)MhLj874

N.A. Britto, J.1. The appellant herein is accused who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No. 9/2003 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Anti Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to undergo R.I. for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 1 'year. The accused has challenged the said conviction and sentence imposed upon him in the present appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18-1-2003 at about 15.00 hours. P.I. Uday Naik of ANC Police Station, Panaji, got reliable and specific information that a person of certain description would come to deliver a consignment of charas to his customers near Hotel Green Park, Guirim, Mapusa, between 18.00-18.30 hours which information P.I. Uday Naik/P.W. 4 reduced into writing and submitted a copy thereof to Dy. S. P. D'Souza/P.W.5 through the P.I. of ANC Police Station, Shri Vincent Paes/PW6 and thereafter he secured the pr...

Bindal Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed by the appellants for granting full waiver of pre-deposit amount and to stay its recovery.3. The appellants are engaged in the processing of fabrics falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.4. the internal audit group, while auditing the records of the appellants, noticed that during the period from 21-5-97 to 15-12-98, the appellants had received various lot numbers of grey man-made fabrics (21,02,962.00 L.M.). They accounted for and removed only 18,77,521.23 L.mtrs. on payment of duty as per the statutory records.Thus, it was inferred by the Department that the net difference between the processed fabrics and the grey fabrics, after providing for shrinkage of 4%, represented grey fabrics, which were processed and clandestinely removed by the appellants. Therefore, Show Cause Notice was issued on 28-5-2002 demanding duty and proposing penalty, etc.5. The main contention of...

Vecron Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (imports)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein had applied for registration of their contract under project imports for initial setting up of a plant for the manufacture of Stamping Foils and Metallised packaging, and filed two Bills of Entry dated 7.12.1994 for import and clearance of second hand machinery namely second hand Lacquering machines and 1 vacuum Metalliser purchased from M/s. Metaplast, the manufacturer of such machines. The importers entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. Metaplast for supply of second hand machinery and Engineering & Technology transfer for an aggregate value of DM 9,00,000/- out of which DM 2,00,000/- towards Engineering & Technology. As per Appendix 2 to the contract, between importers and the manufacturers of the machines, the Engineering & Technology pertains to manufacture of stamping foils and films. Metaplast was to supply know how and training of the appellant personnel to learn know how for metallising and lacquering. The department was of the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner found various infirmities in the order of the lower authorities, and allowed the appeal of the appellants before him. He narrated the infirmities as (a) the Assistant Commissioner has gone over board inasmuch as the allegation in regard to the "Related Person" was not made in the show cause notice and (b) Valuation has been done under Rule 6C(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975, which speaks of valuation of goods when a transaction is done between related parties. He held that the Assistant Commissioner has brought in the concept of the "related person" but has not substantiated in which way the appellants before him was related to Bhor Industries Ltd., Satara. He also observed that the appellants before him is a Limited Company and its buyer is another Limited Company and therefore, cannot be related.3. The contention of the revenue is that the Commissioner was wrong in...

Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Mahesh Goenka

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vacating show cause notice for confiscation of polyester fabrics and vacating the proposal for imposition of penalty on M/s. Chemco Exports (P) Ltd. Exporter of the fabrics (the show cause notice was issued to the exporters proposing confiscation and proposing imposition of penalty) on the ground that they had deliberately misdeclared one of the goods with a mala fide intention to fulfil export obligation in terms of quantity against the advance licence under the DEEC scheme for exporting lesser quantity and getting the higher import entitlement.2. We have heard the Id. SDR and perused the records as none appears for the respondent in spite of notice. The DEEC benefit has been restricted to the quantity of actual export. As regards, the confiscation and penalty which is the subject matter of the present appeal, we note that in the case of Shilpi Exports v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta , the Tribunal...

Essel Propack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 30,64,976/- and penalty of Rs. 33,66,476/- (Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 76, Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 Rs. 500/- under Section 75A and Rs. 30,64,976/- under Section 78), we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage, as the issues in disputes are settled by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. Therefore, after waiving pre-deposit and granting stay of recovery, we proceed to take up the appeal itself for final decision.2. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Multilayered Plastic Laminated Collapsible Tubes and they have entered into agreement with M/s. KMK Lizence Ltd. on 1-9-1997 under which M/s. KMK were to provide Technical Know-how for manufacture of Multilayered Plastic Laminated Collapsible Tube making machine of Model LTM/TET and the tools thereof. The Royalty of Rs. 5,93,58,842/- was remitted during the year 1988-99 towar...

indo Swiss Embroidery Inds and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1. Appellants are a manufacture of embroidery in the piece, strip or in motifs, classified under S.H.5805.19.1.2. Initially they had claimed classification under 5804.11, 5804.12, 5804.19 & 5804.11 & 5805.19. They cleared the products under 5804.11 and from 20/8/98, they cleared the same and cleared them under 5805.19.They however did not discharge the duty levy obligations under the Additional Excise Duty (Textile & Textile Articles) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to AED (TTA).1.3. Demands of duty under AED (TTA) were made vide a notice dtd 24/1/02 for the period Jan 98 to Mar 2000. The same was contested on time bar. However the lower authorities rejected the plea and determined the duty demands and imposed 100% mandatory penalty under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q(1). A penalty under Rule 209A was arrived under Rule 209A on the assessees Director.Hence these appeals 2.1. Heard both sides. The levy under AED (TTA) is not contested. The contest ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Naxpar Lab Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, ld. SDR, appearing for the revenue submits that the dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct classification of the respondent's product "DIGEPLEX SYRUP". The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the respondent's stand and has classified the said goods as medicaments under Heading 3003.10. Whereas, the revenue's contention is that the product is a correctly classifiable as enzymes falling under Heading 3505.00.2. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Reference in the said order has been made to the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Aglowmed Ltd., holding such products as falling under Chapter 30. It has also been noticed that an identical product manufactured by Rallies Indian, was also being classified as medicaments. It has not been shown to us that the revenue has challenged the above order and declaration of classification list. It is further seen that the respondents had contested be...

Kailash Rajput Vs. Commr. of Cus., Sahar Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant herein who is an employee of M/s. Patel. On Board Couriers challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon him by the Commissioner in the impugned order.2. None appears for the appellant in spite of notice; we heard the Ld.SDK and perused the records. The case of the department against the appellant is that he had aided and abetted the smuggling of computer parts and miscellaneous electronic goods, seized on 22-12-1993 at the exit gate of customs arrival hall Model-II NIPT Sahar Air Port, Mumbai.The evidence against the appellant consists of his own statement recorded on 28-4-1994, 10-5-1995 and 20-5-1994, wherein he has inter alia stated that he had learnt that Mohd. Kuddus driver of M/s.Speedways Dubai would be sending courier bags containing dutiable goods on behalf of Aslam Khan and that one Sanjay Tirodkar would clear them without payment of customs duty and Shri Sanjay Tirodkar can clear the said courier bags with dutiable goods without payment of duty...

Suessen Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs confirming a duty demand of Rs. 22,99,941/- on M/s. Suessen Asia Ltd. and imposing a penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs upon them in terms of Section 112(b) and imposing penalties of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 112(a) on employees and representatives of M/s. Spindel Fabrik Suessen, Germany; foreign principals of the Indian company. Demand of duty has been confirmed on components and parts of textile machinery imported through personal baggage of the employees and representative of the foreign principal, without payment of Customs duty. Penalties have been imposed on others who had actually carried the goods as part of their personal baggage.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice, hence we heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. We note that the General Manager of M/s. Suessen Asia Ltd. admitted that the goods were liable to duty and duty payable was deposited. He has also stated that their employees w...