Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Philcorp Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), has confirmed Service Tax of Rs. 3,56,015/- along with imposition of penalties against the appellant, who is a consultancy firm situated at Singapore and has provided services to a firm located in Goa. Surprisingly, the demand stands confirmed against the Singapore firm and not against the receiver of services located in Goa. It is not understood as to how demand can be confirmed against a firm, admittedly located in Singapore and having their business in Singapore only and how the Service Tax authorities in India can exercise their jurisdiction over them.2. The Ld. Advocate clarified that the demand has not been confirmed against the service receiver. In any case, the period of demand is from 1999-2000 to 16-8-2002 when there were no provisions for recovery of Service tax even from the service receiver, as per the Tribunal's decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE & C, Aurangabad 2006 (3) S.T.R. 411 (T), such provisio...

P.B. Vaidya and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC146

1. The facts of the case are that the appellants M/s DGP Hinoday Industries Ltd are engaged in the manufacture of S.G. Iron Castings and the main raw material for the finished product was Cold Rolled Cold Anneale i scrap. This scrap was being procured by the appellants by placing purchase orders with various registered scrap dealers of iron and steel located at Pune and Mumbai. The scrutiny of the invoices, on the basis of which the appellants have availed Modvat/Cenvat credit, revealed that in a number of cases they have availed the credit on the scrap, which had been described as "MS Off cuts", "Off cut of MS sheets", and "scrap of MS off cuts". It was also observed that such off cuts have mostly originated from M/s Telco, Pimpri, Pune, and Bajaj Auto Ltd, Akurdi, Pune, Bajaj Auto Ltd, Aurangabad. Samples of various types of scrap generated in M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd and M/s Telco were taken. Mr. Joshi, Section Manager, Central Stores of Bajaj Auto Ltd, has, in his statement, inter alia ...

Jai Hind Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STT374

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Excise of Rs. 11,84,000/- and Service Tax of Rs. 3,73,750/- and penalty of amount equal to the Excise duty and penalty of Rs. 500 + 1000 +100 under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994.Excise duty has been confirmed on the ground of under valuation i.e. on the ground that the assessee did not include the drawing, design and development charges in the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by them. Service Tax has been confirmed by holding that the assessee is an Engineering firm and has collected the amount on the services which are taxable under Section 65.2. We note that the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards Excise duty demand in compliance of stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since no prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit has been made out as regards the demand of excise duty and Rs. 3 lakhs has already been deposited, we direct furthe...

Basantlal Hariram Ahuja Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC350; 2007(2)BomCR425

A.S. Oka, J.1. Rule. Learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent waives service. The learned A.P.P. waives service for the second respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The first respondent is the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A Revision Application was filed by the present applicant before the Sessions Court for challenging the order issuing process passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the first respondent. By the order impugned dated 2nd May, 2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai has rejected the prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the Revision Application and, therefore, the Revision Application has been disposed of.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is sufficient explanation for delay in the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant. The learned Counsel further submi...

Madhukar V. Dessai Vs. Shaikh Abdul Riyaz

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC475

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act for short) vide Order dated 14.11.2005 of the learned J.M.F.C, Canacona.2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had received from the complainant a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as a friendly loan on a condition that the accused would pay it by a post-dated cheque in favour of the complainant and in respect of the s aid repayment, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 1082731 dated 25.7.2004 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Margao, in favour of the complainant but when the complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 30.7.2004 with his Bankers, namely Goa State Co-operative Bank Limited. Margao, the said cheque was returned dishonoured vide Memorandum dated 30.7.2004 with endorsement that the funds were insufficient, whereupon the complainant addressed a registered notice dated 21.2.2004 to the accused through...

Surajit Bakshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a CHA and is aggrieved with the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed upon him in terms of the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. After hearing the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and the Ld. DR appearing for the revenue, we find that the Commissioner has observed that he has aided and abetted in the clearance of the goods as Nepal bound cargo, which have subsequently deflected by the importers in the Indian market. As such, by referring to the facts that the appellant in his statement had admitted that he was aware that a syndicate was operating the deflection of Nepal bound cargo and by referring to the fact that the appellants had acted as CHA on the basis of directions given on phone instead of receiving the same in writing, the adjudicating authority has held that the appellants has knowingly dealt with the goods and the manner in which he has handled the consignment clearly shows that he was aware of the fact th...

Schenectady Herdillia Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC360

1. These are three appeals against order of Commissioner (Appeals), demanding Special Excise Duty of Rs. 72.19.146/- and imposing a penalty of equivalent amount on M/s Schenectady Herdillia Ltd. and imposition of penalty amount to Rs. 2 Lakh on Shri Joshi, Deputy Manager and Rs. 2 Lakhs on Shri Parab, Manager (Import) of the above company.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants have been importing consignments of propylene tetramer and propylene trimmer which were classified by them under Chapter Heading 2710.14. The goods were initially cleared on provisional basis and after finalization of assessment was held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 2710.19 which was liable to Special Excise Duty at the rate of 16%. The appellants brought the aforesaid goods into their factory and took Cenvat credit in respect of CVD paid by them. The appellants cleared some of these goods as such by paying the same amount of duty that has been paid by them at the time of import and in resp...

Blue Star Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC81

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct classification of the Data Processing Unit imported by the appellants along with the differential scanning calorimeter. According to the appellants, the data processing unit would get classified along with the calorimeter under Customs Tariff Heading 9027.90. On the other hand, the revenue has classified the said data processing unit under heading 84.71.2. As per the appellants, the Disk station SSC 5200H has a multi tasking operating system (OS) which is dedicated for thermal analysis and so it can not be used for General purpose data processing. They also stated that the disk station also controls the Thermal analysis module i.e., DSC 220 and so, it is an integral part of the Thermal Analysis Module DSC 220 and has no independent use.3. As against the above, the original adjudicating authority has observed as under: I have gone through the facts of the case, from the catalogue produced by the party, the disk station SSC 520...

Bhalchandra V. Jadhav Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) imposed upon the appellant, who is an employee of M/s. Amol Shipping Agency. The appellant has appeared in person. Shri Pramod Kumar Ld. JDR appears on behalf of the Revenue.2. For better appreciation of the reasons for imposition of penalty on the appellant, we reproduced para 73.1 and 73.2 of the impugned order. As already discussed in detail in the preceding paras, the declarations made in the export documents contained false claims of the extent of export made. There is no denial of the facts by Shri Ashok Pokharkar that, forged Bills of Lading were used by him, to create an evidence of export, whereas no cargo was actually carted into the Docks. The signatures of various functionaries of customs deptt. Steamer Agent, SASMIRA Laboratory Scientists were forged on the various documents to create fictitious evidence of acceptance, of exports, which did not take place. T...

Sandeep Refrigeration and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of order of the Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, Mumbai confirming the duty demand of Rs. 72,84,676.86 against M/s. Refrigeration Industries and imposing penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs thereon and penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on Its proprietor, confiscating the goods seized from the premises of M/s.Refrigeration Industries with option of redemption on payment of fine, confiscating the Indian currency seized from their premises with option of redemption, confiscating the goods seized from the premises of M/s.Ranko Refrigeration and from M/s.Shabnam Traders with option of redemption, confiscating the land, building, plant, machinery, etc.used in connection with manufacture of excisable goods, with option of redemption and imposing penalties on M/s.Shabnam Traders, M/s.Sahayadri Sales & Services, M/s. Sandeep Refrigeration, M/s. Hindustan Refrigeration Stores, M/s. Pearl Trading, M/s. Ankur Oils & Refrigeration Company M/s. Imperial Refrigeration Co...