Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC320Tri(Mum.)bai
1. the revision application filed before the government of india against the order no. 541 dated 23.11.1981 passed by the central board of excise & customs, statutorily stood transferred to the tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: the appellants m/s. hes ltd., are the manufacturer of alarm time pieces and lever clock movements etc. they were registered with the dgtd for manufacture of analogue quartz clocks. they placed two orders with the swiss suppliers for 5,000 sets and 22,000 sets of i.c. and quartz required for their quartz clocks to be supplied in august and september, 1980. the foreign suppliers despatched by air freight five thousand sets of integrated circuits and quartz. in the meantime on 3rd july, 1980 by a public notice no. 25-itc(pn)/80 the integrated circuits and quartz crystals came to be canalised. when the appellants sought clearance of 7,000 sets of integrated circuits and quartz, the same was objected to by the customs on the ground of they being canalised. the additional collector of customs who held the enquiry ordered confiscation on the ground that the order for the supply of the goods in question was made after the public notice dated 3.7.1980 came into force. he, however, allowed redemption on payment of a fine of rs. 5,000/-.3. feeling aggrieved by the order the appellants preferred an appeal before the board and the board rejected the appeal holding that the conditions of itc public .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(12)LC1225Tri(Mum.)bai
1. the revision application filed before the government of india against the order-in-appeal bearing no/ s/49-146/78 drawback dated 18.4.78 passed by the appellate collector of customs, bombay statutorily stood transferred to the tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a small compass. the appellants m/s. colour chem ltd. exported certain dyestuff and claimed drawback under shipping bill no. 28197 dated 28.4.76. the assistant collector of customs, drawback rejected the claim as inadmissible on the ground that the appellants by their letter dated 30.12.77 stated that the consignment under reference has not come back to india and has been reported lost abroad and therefore the claim for drawback was inadmissible. on appeal, the appellate collector rejected the claim by holding that the goods were only loaded on the ship and as those goods were not landed at the port of destination and that there was also no evidence to show that the goods left the territorial waters of india or were not brought back, the drawback claim had been rightly rejected by the assistant collector.3. during the hearing of this appeal, shri bernard misquith commercial assistant of the appellants submitted that the goods were loaded on board the vessel. they were so entered in the export general manifest of the vessel, entry outward was granted to the vessel and the loading of the goods was acknowledged by the preventive officer by his .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC584Tri(Mum.)bai
..... shri chadha was convicted by a criminal, court.on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to nine months r.i. ..... if that contention is to be accepted, then his plea that 175 circuits are not shown to be foreign goods does not carry conviction.38. ..... shri chadha had abeen pleaded guilty before criminal court. ..... his only plea was that the penalty imposed on him was harsh. ..... his only plea was that the penalty imposed was very harsh. ..... his plea was accepted, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and also fined. ..... his plea that he was confused and was not in a fit state of mind cannot be accepted. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC779Tri(Mum.)bai
1. this reference application under section 130(1) of the customs act is by the appellants in appeal cd(t)(bom) no. 176/81. by this application the applicants requires the tribunal to refer the points set out in paragraph 8 of the application which according to him are the questions of law arising out of the order-in-appeal to the high court after drawing a statement of the case.2. we heard shri s.n. parikh, advocate for the applicants and shri n.k.pattekar for the respondent collector. we perused our order-in-appeal cd(t)(bom) appeal no. 176/81.3. the brief facts of the appeal were: the present applicants application for refund of duty was rejected by the assistant collector of customs as barred under section 27(1) of the customs act. on appeal, the appellate collector also rejected holding that the provisions of section 27(1) are mandatory. in the revision application filed before the government of india which stood transferred to the tribunal for being heard as an appeal the applicants herein did not dispute that the claim was made after the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. the contention was that due to layoff in the factory the application for refund could not be made within the prescribed period.the claim for refund related to the duty paid in respect of the goods which were imported but were found missing and not delivered to the applicants.4. this bench rejected the appeal holding that the customs act did not confer any power on the assistant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(10)LC42Tri(Mum.)bai
1. m/s. mekaster private limited have filed this appeal against the order no. s/10-1194/a/83acc/ s/9-35/83 a, dated 14-10-1985 of the collector of customs, air cargo complex, sahar, bombay. the appeal is against the collector's order under which he ordered levy of a sum of rs. 5,30,772/- in terms of the bond executed by the appellants for submitting the licence for the import of the goods in question. an amount of rs. 1,32,693/- held in deposit was appropriated against the sum demanded by the collector leaving a balance amount of rs. 3,98,079/-. alongwith this appeal, m/s. mekaster private limited filed an application for waiving the deposit of rs. 3,98,d79/- and staying its recovery. the tribunal under their order no. csp(bom)406/85. dated 10-1-1986 directed m/s. mekaster private limited to deposit rs. 2,50,000/- in cash within four weeks from 10-1-1986 and to produce proof of compliance within five weeks from that date. the appellants were informed that in case of failure, their appeal would be liable to be rejected. the appellants sought extension of time for depositing the amount upto 28-2-1986 which was granted by the tribunal. their further application to extend the time beyond 28--2-1986 was rejected. even today the appellants have not complied with the order of the tribunal on their stay application. therefore a notice was issued to the appellants asking them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed from non-compliance with section 129e of the customs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(10)LC96Tri(Mum.)bai
1. m/s g.p. volkart ltd. have filed an application dated 9-5-1980 under old section 131 of the customs act to the government of india and this has been transferred to the tribunal in terms of section 131-b ibid and has to be treated as an appeal before this tribunal. the appeal is against the order no. s/14-779/76 pint dated 12-10-1977 of the additional collector of customs (preventive) bombay as modified by the order no. 227a of 1979 dated 26-11-1979 of the central board of excise & customs under which m.v. henriette maersk has been confiscated by the addl. collector under section 115(2) of the customs act and permitted to be redeemed on payment of a fine of rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation.2. on behalf of the appellant kum. manjula sen briefly dealt with the facts of the case relating to the arrival of the ship in bombay harbour and its rummage on 29-12-1976 and 30-12-1976 resulting in recovery of various foreign goods on both those days totally valued at rs. 2,38,816/-at the local market rate. these facts led to the investigations, issue of the show cause notice and the determination of the offence under the impugned order of the addl. collector dated 12-10-1977. the addl. collector confiscated the goods absolutely under section 111(d) and (f) of the customs act, 1962, confiscated the ship under section 115(2) of the c.a. and allowed its redemption on payment of a fine of rs. 2,00,000/- and levied a penalty of rs. 10,000/- on the master of the vessel and rs. 5,000/- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(12)LC925Tri(Mum.)bai
..... no such hostility has been alleged against the customs officer.therefore, the plea of disowning the recovery is not acceptable. ..... the main plea taken up by the appellant is to disown recovery of gold from him.though he has made efforts in that direction, they are neither successful nor complete. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)LC654Tri(Mum.)bai
1. m/s liberty oil mills filed a petition dated 18-1-1982 to the government of india under old section 131 of the customs act and this has been transferred to the tribunal under section 131-b ibid and is to be treated as an appeal before this tribunal. the appeal is against the order no. s/10-58/81/a, dated 24-4-1981 of the collector of customs, bombay, under which he exercised the power under old section 130 of the customs act and reviewed the order of the assistant collector of customs group 'a' allowing clearance of copra valued at rs. 20,09,461/- c.i.f. imported by the appellants under bill of entry no. 2368/818, dated 20-2-1981 per s.s. zinoviy soloyev. shri banatwala submitted that this consignment was by way of replacement under ogl no. 4/80 of goods imported earlier. there was no dispute regarding this fact. shri banatwala submitted that the appellants imported 1000 m/tons of copra from zanzibar earlier under bill of entry no. 1938/10, dated 1-3-1979.on 10-3-1979 there was fire in the bombay docks and a quantity of 520.304 m/tons of copra was completely destroyed in fire. the appellants claimed the insurance against this loss amounting to rs. 20,09,461/- and this claim was passed by the insurance company. against this loss the appellants imported the present consignment and sought its clearance under ogl no. 4. the consignment of copra weighed 348.52 m/tons. the asstt. collector accepted the appellarits claim for the clearance of the consignment under ogl no. 4 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(10)LC443Tri(Mum.)bai
1. this is an appeal filed by m/s. espi industrial corporation, new delhi against the order-in-original no. sg-81/83a/s/10-56/84-l siib, dated 7-2-1985 of the additional collector of customs enforcing terms of bond for a sum of rs. 10,00,000/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of goods imported under b/e no. 2783/25 by the importer and also levying a fine of rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of goods valued at rs. 20,26,500/- imported under b/e no. 2783/24 by the same importer. m/s. espi industrial corporation imported the aforesaid two consignments consisting of components of belarus tractors umz per s.s. nikolay aananiev, and claimed their clearance under o.g.l. in appendix 10 serial no. 1 of the a.m. 84 policy. the customs house objected to the clearance of these consignments under the o.g.l. on the grounds that the importer's registration certificate with" the director of industries carried the endorsement of "tractor" on provisional basis as an additional item of manufacture, that the goods imported were tractors in dis-assembled version, that the importers did not submit to the customs authorities a copy of their application to the director of industries showing their manufacturing program, that the goods under import were categorised as capital goods and required a capital goods import licence for their importation and that certain goods as mentioned in the show cause notice did not in any case come within the purview of o.g.l. in appendix 10 serial no. 1 as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(26)ELT864Tri(Mum.)bai
1. the collector of customs & central excise, rajkot has filed this application under section 82-b of the gold (control) act 1968 to refer to the hon'ble gujarat high court at ahmedabad the point of law which has arisen out of the order of the tribunal no. 1236/85-wrb dated 11-10-1985, in the appeal of shri. nagin-kumar mamaiyabhai jagda registered under g.c.(bom)a no. 121/85. under aforesaid order this bench directed that the appeal of shri naginkumar mamaiyabhai jagda be heard and disposed of by the collector of customs (appeals) as the order under which shri naginkumar felt aggrieved was passed by the addl. collector of central excise, rajkot. the tribunal had held in earlier similar cases that an appeal against the addl. collector's order in such circumstances would lie to the collector (appeals) and not to the tribunal. hence the aforesaid decision of the tribunal in the order dated 11-10-1985 was in keeping with identical orders in the past.2. on behalf of the applicant, learned sdr shri senthivel stated that the application of the collector had been filed in time and though the prayer in the annexure-a to the application was manifold, it essentially boiled down to determination of the single question as mentioned under serial no. 8(1) of the proforma for filing the application. this was point 2(ii) of annexure-a to the application and it involved determination of the question whether the collector of central excise included addl. collector also for the purpose of .....
Tag this Judgment!