Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Cestat Mumbai
Company Law Board Clb
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Cestat Delhi
Sales Tax Tribunal Stt Tamil Nadu
Sebi Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal Sat
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Itat Ahmedabad
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Itat Pune
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Itat Nagpur
Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 2003 Page 100 of about 2,277 results (0.023 seconds)
Jan 22 2003 (TRI)
Western Hatcheries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Appeals)
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)LC102Tri(Mum.)bai
1. shri naresh thacker, learned advocate for the appellants states that the issue involved in this appeal relates to the classification of the impugned goods described under the relevant bill of entry as "outback environment system for poultry shed in knock down condition". the appellants seek classification under subheading no. 8436.29 whereas the department has classified the impugned goods under sub-heading no.8415.83. the commissioner (appeals) has upheld the classification done by the additional commissioner of the impugned goods under sub-heading no. 8415.83 as air-conditioning machinery without incorporating a refrigerating unit. the following reasoning has been adopted by the additional commissioner for classifying the product under sub-heading 8415.83 :- "it is not in dispute that the items imported constitute a complete unit and its function is to maintain a required temperature in a closed space may be a shed whether for poultry or cattle. the unit also consists of heater, fans, cooling unit sensors and controllers. the unit is sought clearance under ogl and under item 8436.29 of customs tariff. chapter heading 8436.29 covers poultry keeping machines which according to harmonised commodity description and coding system explanatory notes, covers (1) rearing and laying units or "batteries" (2) egg candlers and (3) automatic poultry pluckers. the unit imported does not fit into the description of the item covered by 8438.29. a unit which helps in generating and .....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.C. Industries
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC454
2. at the outset, shri k.s. ravi shankar, learned advocate raised primary objection that authorisation is neither legal nor proper. he submitted that since the order passed by the commissioner (appeals), the commissioner has to give authorisation in terms of section 35b(2) and not under section 35e (2). he said that section 35e(2) envisages only filing of appeal before the commissioner (appeals) by the commissioner in case he is not satisfied with the order passed by the subordinates. he said that since the order was duly passed by the commissioner (appeals), the authorisation for filing of appeal before the appellate tribunal was required to be filed in terms of section 35b(2) and not under section 35e(2). in this context, he drew our attention to relevant section 35e(2) & 35b(2) of central excise act, 1944, which reads as under- section 355e(2)--"the commissioner of central excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such authority to apply to the commissioner (appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the commissioner of central excise in his order." section 35b(2)--"the [commissioner of central excise] may, if he is of opinion that an order passed .....
Feb 03 2003 (TRI)
Miralka Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT357TriDel
1. appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. brief facts of the case are that m/s. india export house made an import of 7 containers of rough blocks of italian marble. the containers arrived at icd, pragati maidan on 1-1-91, but nobody filed bill of entry in spite of notices issued to the importer repeatedly.when no bill of entry was filed, the show cause notice was issued to the importer and the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 27-2-92, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty of rs. 5 lakh on the importer. the importer, m/s. india export house filed appeal before the tribunal and the tribunal, vide order dated 22-8-94, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 28-2-98, confiscated the goods in question under section 111(d) of the customs act. thereafter, the importer m/s. india export house had not filed any appeal.3. m/s. miralka enterprises filed appeal before the commissioner (appeals) challenging the confiscation of the goods and claiming to be the owner of the goods in question. the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.5. the contention of the appellants is that they are the exporter of the goods. as the importer had not got the goods cleared, they are the owners of the goods in question. the contention of the appellants is also that no notice under section 124 of the customs act had been issued to them as it requires that before confiscation, the .....
Mar 11 2003 (TRI)
Anju Devi Vs. Commissioner of Customs
1. in these two appeals, filed by smt. anju devi and shree sanatan dev goswami, the common issue involved is whether the appeals filed by them against order-in-original no. 75/a & r/vs/97, dated 3-10-1997 passed by the commissioner of customs are maintainable under section 129a of the customs act.2. briefly stated the facts are that the officers of directorate of revenue intelligence intercepted a tata mobile van no. mp 09d 8093 on 30-8-1991 at shahjahanpur police post; that the search of the said van resulted in the recovery and seizure of 581 slabs of silver weighing 702.780 kgs. and valued at rs. 47,08,626/- from five specially built secret cavities; that rajendra kumar, driver, in his statement dated 31-8-91 deposed that one kanchan aggarwal of mathura appointed him as his driver; that kanchan aggarwal purchased the said mobile van which was registered in the name of one manoj kumar which was later on transferred in the name of dinesh aggarwal of indore; that one dinesh kumar of mathura took the mobile van to one garage and got the cavities made; that before 15th august he brought silver weighing about 700 kg.approx. from beawar alongwith dinesh and delivered the same to kanchan aggarwal; that in the present trip he went to beawar from mathura alongwith one bharat and met one rangwala near railway station as per the direction of kanchan aggarwal; that rangwala took away the vehicle, returned after about six hours and told them that he had concealed smuggled silver in the .....
Anil Chemicals and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai
1. the appellants manufactured emulsion matrix falling under sub-heading 3602.00 which was cleared on payment of duty and was stored in premises adjacent to their factory. they also purchased duty paid fuel oil and ammonium nitrate prilled which was also stored in the same shed. they owned a mobile van, which had four compartments. in three compartments they stored separately emulsion, matrix, fuel oil and ammonium nitrate. they took contracts for supply of prepared explosives for blasting in the mines. such prepared explosives fall under sub-heading 3602.00. the van was taken to the mines, inside the mines the forth compartment of the mobile van was used for mixing the three ingredients in the required proportions which were then taken for blasting. show cause notice was issued on 20-2-2001 alleging that the activity of mixing the ingredients together in the van at the mine site amounted to manufacture. it was alleged that the appellants had not taken out a licence, had not maintained accounts, and had cleared the excisable goods without payment of duty. the short levy during the period january, 1996 to march, 1999 was quantified at rs. 29,79,676/-.the commissioner after hearing the assessees passed order confirming the duty and imposing penalty of equal amount on the assessees. hence the appeal.2. we have heard shri balbir singh, advocate for the appellants and shri a. shukla for the revenue.4. the show cause notice merely makes the assertion that the prepared explosives .....
Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. National Radio Product
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2003)(156)ELT908Tri(Kol.)kata
1. the revenue, being aggrieved with the order passed by the commissioner of customs (appeals), has filed the present appeal. the appellate authority has set aside the confiscation of cell-phone and radios of foreign origin on the ground that the said goods are non-notified items under the provisions of section 123 of the customs act and the revenue has not produced any evidence to show that the same are smuggled.2. after hearing from both sides duly represented by shri m.r. madhiam, id. jdr and by shri b.n. chattopadhyay, id. consultant appearing for the respondents, i find that the commissioner of customs (appeals) has observed as under ;- " from the records of the case, i find that the goods were seized for being of foreign origin and sole reason for their confiscation was that those were not covered by any legal documents. the impugned goods are not covered under section 123 of the customs act, 1962. hence, the burden is on the department to prove that the impugned goods have been brought into india through an unauthorised route as alleged and are smuggled. i find that no such burden has been discharged by the department. non production of documentary evidence showing legal importation of the impugned goods does not lead to the conclusion of their being smuggled goods. as such, i find that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable. the ratio of various judgments of cegat on which the appellant has relied upon is applicable to the facts of .....
Polymech Plast Machines Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Reported in : (2003)(154)ELT706Tri(Mum.)bai
1. in the common order impugned in these appeals, the commissioner has found that each of these persons paid duty on the plastic injection moulding machines that they manufactured and cleared by underdeclaring the capacity and dimensions and by not including in the value of goods the cost of free parts supplied along with the goods, confirmed the demand for duty issued to them and imposed penalties.2. the contention of the common counsel for the appellants with regard to polymech plast machines ltd. is this. in the course of the proceedings before the commissioner, the appellant had asked for, and had been granted, permission to cross-examine its managing director, personnel manager and accounts manager, whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notice. cross-examination of these persons concluded on 20-3-1996. in the submission filed on 29-3-1996, the appellant had requested for a personal hearing. the commissioner has passed this order without according an opportunity. he relies upon the decision of the tribunal in sawant food products ltd. v. cc - 1999 (111) e.l.t. 943.3. in this decision, the tribunal had explained that in a situation where cross-examination of witnesses is asked for and granted, the party had to be heard after such cross-examination concluded. only then can the party present evidence in the proceedings which are taken place. the party could not have also raised other aspects of the case.it therefore, set aside the order of the commissioner of .....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tisco (Tube Division)
1. being aggrieved with the order passed by commissioner (appeals), patna the revenue has filed the present appeal. the facts in brief as given in the revenue's memo of appeal are as under :- (a) m/s. tisco (tube division), jamshedpur had cleared some excisable goods for export on ar4a nos. 120, dt. 10-11-1994 and 121 dt. 11-11-1994 involving c. ex. duty of rs. 5,43,362.55 under bond i.e. without payment of c. ex. duty, but they did not produce the proof of export even after a lapse of six months as per stipulation. accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing therein recovery of duty of rs. 5,43,362.55, imposition of penalty under rule 14a and demand of interest at applicable rate. (b) in their defence reply dt. 10-1-2000, m/s. tisco (tube division) submitted the verified copies of ar 4a nos. 120 & 121 which were endorsed by the customs officer of the concerned port that the materials were shipped in full on 12-11-94. the ar 4as were duly verified by the range officer, cable-ii, jamshedpur. (c) the deputy commissioner, central excise div-ii, jamshedpur vide o-in-o no. 26/mp/dc/2001, dt. 30-10-2001 confirmed the demand of rs. 5,43,362.55, imposition of penalty of rs. 5,0007- and proportional interest on the basis of his findings that the said copies of ar 4as were nothing but photocopies of the same which were later certified by the sector office showing particulars of clearance from the factory. on the back side of the said certified copies of ar .....
Electroteknica Switchgears Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
1. the dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct classification of field switch manufactured by the appellants. whereas the appellants claimed the classification under heading 8535.00, the revenue has classified the said product under heading 8537.00.accordingly, the demand of duty of rs. 35,65,043.00 (rupees thirty-five lakh sixty-five thousand and forty-three) has been confirmed against the appellants by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 28-1-2000 for the period from 8-2-95 to 28-2-97.2. we have heard shri p.r. das, learned advocate for the appellants and shri j.r. madhiam, j.d.r. for the revenue. the appellants have challenged the impugned order on the point of classification as also on limitation. we find that the appeal can be disposed of on limitation itself, inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 28-1-2000 for the period from february, 1995 to february, 1997 i.e. beyond the normal period of six months, as provided under section 11a of the central excise act, 1944. the show cause notice alleges that the appellants had filed the classification lists/declarations during the relevant period under rule 173b classifying and declaring the said product under 85.35, without declaring the details of the raw materials and the components used for the manufacture of the product in question, and as such, had suppressed the relevant information from the revenue. the notice also alleges that with a view to convince the authority to get the lists .....
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Rexon Strips Ltd.
1. being aggrieved with the order passed by commissioner (appeals) the revenue has filed the present appeal. we have heard shri j.r. madhiam, ld. jdr for the revenue and shri p. kejriwal, ld. director, appearing for the respondent. the issue involved is the excisability of coal ash.the asstt. commr. had confirmed the classification of coal ash under sub-heading no. 2621.00 and accordingly confirmed the demand of duty of rs. 2,27,120/- for the period july, 1996 to march, 2000 along with imposition of personal penalty of rs. 2,27,120/- under the provisions of section 11ac of the central excise act, 1944 read with rule 173q of central excise rules, 1944. on an appeal against the above order commissioner (appeals) set aside the same by relying upon the decision of the hon'ble high court of gujarat in the case of ahmedabad electricity ltd. v. uoi - 2001 (131) e.l.t. 535 (guj.) vide which it was held that cinder remaining from the coal ash i.e. burnt of being used as fuel may be a marketable commodity, but would not be excisable goods produced or manufactured by the petitioners within the meaning of 'other ash' under sub-heading 26.21 of the schedule to the tariff act.accordingly, the court held that the circulars and trade notices issued by the board classifying the same under heading no. 26.21 are arbitrary, illegal and not warranted by the provisions of central excise act and excise tariff act. the same were therefore set aside. by applying the ratio of the above decision the .....