Mumbai Court June 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Jay Iron and Steel Industri ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a visit by Central Excise Officers to the respondent’s factory, a stock taking was done on finished goods and the impugned goods i.e. M.S. Scrap, it was found finished goods were tallying and were properly accounted as per the RG I Register and there was no difference. However, it was noticed that there was shortage of 40.00 MT of M.S. Scrap. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued demanding duty on such shortage of scrap with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority relying on the panchanama confirmed the demand denying the submission of the respondent that scrap was not actually weighed on any weighing machine. Aggrieved by the same the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the adjudication order holding that Revenue has failed to prove that there was actual shortage of 40 MT of M.S. scrap and it was clandestinely removed. Aggrieved by the sam...
Sulzer Pumps (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal arises for hearing out of turn at the instance of the appellant inasmuch as their application for early disposal of the appeal was granted by this Bench vide Order dated 17.7.09. However, today, there is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request for adjournment. In the above circumstances, we take up this appeal for disposal. 2. The learned SDR representing the Revenue has given us an account of the facts of this case. We have also examined the records. 3. M/s Sulzer Pumps (India) Ltd (formerly known as Khimline Pumps Ltd), the appellant herein, had obtained technical know-how from M/s Sulzer Brothers Ltd, Winterthur, Switzerland, for the manufacture, in India, of pumps for industrial application as per the Collaboration Agreement dated 09.03.1984. Such know-how related to the design, manufacturing and sale of the said goods. In consideration of the transfer of the know-how, the Indian company paid lump sum of SFr 3,33,000 net o...
Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Vs. Omega International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal was filed by the department. There is no representation for the respondent. However, their advocate has forwarded copies of two judgments alongwith a request to consider the same and dispose of this appeal accordingly. In other words, the respondent does not want to be personally heard. We have heard the learned JDR for the appellant, who has reiterated the grounds of this appeal. 2. The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the Commissioner ought to have imposed a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods in question. According to the department, the learned Commissioner should have imposed such fine. In this connection, certain decisions of this Tribunal and a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court have been cited in the memorandum of appeal. In this appeal, there is also reference to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We have perused the cited decisions also. The decisions cited by the respond...
Frontier Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. The appeal is by a Customs House Agent who is aggrieved by the suspension of the CHA Licence. The appellant was the Customs House Agent of numerous exporters who exported readymade garments under claim for drawback. After investigations into such exports, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) framed a case of fraud against the exporters. The DRI found that the exporters had indulged in gross overvaluation of the export goods with intent to get undue benefit of drawback. The DRI also found the CHA to have abetted the offence of the exporters and accordingly, sent a report to the Commissioner on 11.12.08 about the role played by the appellant as CHA of the aforesaid exporters. This report came to be placed before the Commissioner on 15.12. 08. On 17.12. 08, the Commissioner suspended the CHA licence under Regulation 20 (2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR, for short) 2004 vide Order No 92/2008. Later on, after giving the CHA an opportun...
Commissioner of Customs (Acc and Import) Mumbai Vs. R.K. Impex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: The respondent in this appeal had imported in April 2001 what they declared as "Synthetic Pile Fabrics" in the relevant Bill of Entry which was filed through their CHA on 11/04/2001. The relevant airway bill had also described the goods in the same way. The goods were classified by the importer under CTH 6001.92. The consignment consisting of 4716.37 metres of fabric valued at Rs. 2,00,584/- was assessed to duty on the basis of the importer's declaration and, upon payment of such duty by the assessee, out-of-charge was allowed by the assessing authority under Section 47 of the Customs Act. The goods were accordingly cleared for home consumption. Subsequently, however, the SIIB doubted the veracity of the importer's declarations. They were of the view that the goods were actually woven fabric of weft pile classifiable under CTH 5801.33 as 'synthetic woven weft pile fabrics'. Samples were drawn and got tested at the department's chemical laboratory. The test report conf...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Mumbai - Vii Vs. Skol Brewe ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the commodity ("Malt Extract" as it is called by the department and "WORT" as it is called by the assessee), on which the department wanted to levy duty of excise, was not marketable or excisable. The grounds of this appeal have been contested by the respondent by way of written submissions styled as "Cross-Objections" 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the short question arising in this case for consideration stands settled in favour of the respondent by an earlier decision of this Bench which has been accepted by the department vide order No. 1310-1311/WZB/2003 dated 19/09/2003 in appeal Nos. E/2159 and 2545/2002 (M/s. Skol Breweries Ltd. and another vs. CCE, Mumbai). In the said case, this Tribunal found the above commodity to be not marketable / excisable and accordingly, the demand of duty raised on appellant-breweries was set aside. We are also told ...
Commissioner of Customs (import) Mumbai Vs. Sahir Overseas Corporation ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal was filed by the department challenging the order passed by the lower appellate authority in respect of a consignment of "beauty toilet soaps (naked)" imported by the respondent and covered by Bill of Entry dated 17/09/1999 filed by them. There is no representation today for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. This happened on the previous occasions also. We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of this case finally after hearing the learned SDR. 2. In the aforesaid Bill of Entry, the respondent had claimed exemption from payment of special additional duty under Notification No 22/99-Cus dated 28/02/1999 (serial No. 5). The entry at serial No. 5 in the table annexed to the notification reads as under: "S. No. Description of goods Rate of special additional duty (1) (2) (3) 5. All goods falling under the said First Schedule, which are imported for sale as such, other than by way of high seas sale and the importer at the t...
Commissioner of Customs(import), Nhava Sheva Vs. M/S. Ras Internationa ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
Per : P.G. Chacko There are two applications before us, both filed by the appellant (Revenue), one for condonation of delay of the appeal and the other for stay of operation of the impugned order. We take up the first application. 2. The appellant received a copy of the impugned order on 23.4.08 and filed the present appeal on 18.5.09. The extent of delay is nearly 300 days, as against ‘387 working days’ mentioned in the present application. This application says that the delay has occurred on account of transfer of officers. It says that the new incumbents were not aware of the matter. It further says that there was pressure of work in the appraising group. The prayer in this application is to condone the ‘inadvertent delay - involved in the filing of the appeal. The ld.SDR has presented a chronology of events leading to the filing of the appeal. According to this write-up, the appraising officer concerned received a copy of the appellate Commissioner’ order o...
Commissioner of Customs (Ep), Mumbai Vs. Asheema Fashions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) There are two applications before us, both filed by the Revenue, one for out-of-turn disposal of their appeal and the other seeking rectification of what the appellant considers 'apparent mistake' in an earlier remand order passed by this Bench in a batch of appeals. There is nobody today to oppose these applications despite notice. After examining the records and hearing the learned SDR, we find that numerous parties were affected by the learned Commissioner's order and that their appeals were allowed by way of remand by this Bench vide order No. A/616-629/WZB/MUM/2008/CSTB/C-II dated 10.11.2008. In that order, we had also requested the learned Commissioner to pass final order as early as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date on which copies of relied-upon documents were to be supplied to the party concerned. It appears, the Revenue's appeal No. C/948/08 could not be taken up along with the appeals filed by the parties. The main gri...
Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) We had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act within a period of eight weeks from 3.9.2009 (date of our order) and report compliance on 9.11.2009 vide order No. S/358/WZB/2009 dated 3.9.2009. The amount was not deposited. When the matter came up for report of compliance, it was submitted that a writ petition had been filed before the Hon'ble High Court and that the Hon'ble High Court would be moved for stay of operation of our order soon after it is reopening after summer vacation. Today, a representative of the company submits that the matter is yet to be taken up by the High Court and, therefore, a further period of 10 days should be given for report of compliance. It is submitted that the High Court matter is on board for the 14th of this month. In answer to a query from the Bench, the company's representative is not able to produce documentary evidence of the submission made by him, nor is h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »