Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-09-2002
Reported in : (2002)(143)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal has been taken up for consideration with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, whereunder he felt that there was a misdeclaration of export in respect of knitted jackets and pyjamas valued at US $ 36,000/- and US $ 18,000/- respectively and the drawback claim of Rs. 3,13,250/- was made. It transpires that the appellant has also exported other five items of textiles whereunder in respect of 100% cotton polyester woven jeans was procured by him from the market and exported the same. In respect of this item also the charge against the appellant was that he had misdeclared it. Yet it was found that he has not misdeclared it.3. During the course of the hearing, the learned Counsel pleaded before me that in respect of the items procured by the appellant from outside, it has been proved correct. When there is a mistake has occurred in respect of other two items ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)(146)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed of Rs. 14,26,266/- was granted and the appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants supplied lubricating oils to foreign going vessels as ship stores in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which permitted such export without payment of duty on appropriate bonds being filed. Although such exports were made under bond for a number of years vide three show cause notices it was alleged that the facility was not available and therefore demand for duty as mentioned above was made covering the period December, 1998 to December, 2000. The duties were confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that in terms of Notification 44/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994 lubricating oils was shown to be a commodity eligible for export under claim for rebate in terms of Rule 12. He observed that there was no specific notification under Rule 13 for export of ship stores under bond. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-12-2002
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence issued to the appellant to function as a Custom House Agent at Kandla under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter Regulation).3. We are not able to accept the ground in the appeal that the order was passed by the Commissioner ex parte without giving the appellant opportunity of being heard, in that the Commissioner passed an order without granting hearing in spite of a request made in letter 21-12-99.In this letter, while the applicant denied each of the charges in detail, it did not ask for any hearing. Regulation 23 of the Regulations which prescribed the procedure for suspending or revoking the licence contained in Sub-regulation (6) provisions for the agent to submit within a period of not more than 60 days from the receipt of the enquiry officer any representation he may wish to make against it.Sub-regulation (7) provides that after considering the report and representation the...
Tag this Judgment!