Mumbai Court May 1983 Judgments
Hirachand Kantilal and Co. and Vs. Gold Control Administrator and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1071DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed jointly by M/s. Hirachand Kantilal & Co., Hirachand Leelachand Shah and Shri Hemant Hirachand Shah under the Gold (Control) Act.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Hirachand Kantilal Saraf was earring on a business as Gold Dealer having valid licence No. 4/67 since 1967. There was no contravention under the Gold Control Act.There was deterioration in the health of Shri Hirachand Kantilal Saraf, who was the sole proprietor of the concern. Being old, he was not in a position to carry on the business as sole proprietor of the concern.The appellant's financial year is Diwali to Diwali. The appellant had converted this sole proprietory concern carried out under the name of M/s. Hirachand Kantilal Saraf since 1967 into a partner ship firm under the Indian Partnership Act with effect from the 28th day of October, 1981. The partnership deed was executed on the 25th day of November, 1981 and was effective from the 28th day of October, 1981 and he had admitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1075DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Lid., Bombay have filed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central brxcise (Appeals), Bombay vide order No. V 2(6) 2190/81/10692 dated 26.10.82, requesting for refund of excise duty paid in excess. The learned Collector had disposed of four appeals in a consolidated order.2. Shri C.R. Dafle on behalf of the appellant has submitted before us that storage tank Nos. 407 and 508 were recalibrated by the CPWD authorities and recalibration was approved with effect from 1.8.77 and subsequently in April, 1980 CPWD authorities informed that recalibration was ed or received was more than the actual quantity as revealed from the revised recalibration w.e.f. 20.4,1980. As a result, during the intervening period, the appellant paid more duty and filed the refund claims as under: _____________________________________________________________________________ S. No. Appeal No. Dt. of refund Period to which claim claims pertained. ________________...
Tag this Judgment!Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Chief Controller of Imp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom369
Sujata Manohar, J.1. Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition in this High Court, being Writ Petition No. 1717 of 1981 challenging the grant of an import license to M/s. Oriental Containers Ltd. (respondent No. 3) permitting them to import plaint and machinery for the production of aluminum collapsible tubes. By this judgment and order dated 10-12-1982 the learned single Judge of this Court, who heard the petition, dismissed the petition with costs. The petitioner have come in appeal from this decision.2. The petitioner manufacture, inter alia, aluminium collapsible tubes. According to the petitioner, from the year 1963 onwards they have also been manufacturing plaint and machinery for the production of aluminium collapsible tubes. Their manufacturing division is known as 'Packmachines'. The petitioner claim to have manufactured 9 such plants for the production of aluminium collapsible tubes. There plants, however are being utilised by High petitioner themselves or by their allie...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1250DTri(Mum.)bai
1. These are four appeals of identical nature under Section 35B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, coming up for hearing and decision simultaneously. Therefore, they are being considered and decided through a common order. The appellant's representative Shri Bhave has briefly discussed the facts of each appeal. The basic issue is the demand for duty issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on losses over 0.75% of Mineral oil transferred in bond under Rule 152 from the appellants' installations in Bombay to their installations in Delhi. The Central Excise Authorities in charge of their installations at Bombay have thus recovered duty on losses in excess of 0.75% in the quantities transferred under each A.R. 3 application to Delhi in bond.Though the details of each appeal are not the same, the basic issue is the same in all the appeals. The learned representative of the appellants has stated that the demands for duty were made under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jasmine Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1335DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellants' representative has explained that the Mills brought in duty paid grey fabrics for bleaching/dyeing in their process house and thereafter the fabrics bleached/dyed were sent to P.V.C. coating plant within the factory.After the coating of the P.V.C. the weight of cotton in the coated fabrics was more than 40% and this meant that the coated fabrics remain classified as cotton fabrics under item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff. However, before the fabrics were taken up for P.V.C. coating, the Mills were required to pay the duty of 0.5 ps. On the Medium/B coarse fabric for bleaching as per Sr. No. l(b)of Notification No.29/66 C.E. dt. 1.3.66. The learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that as per the Trade Notice No. 135 (MP)/Cotton Fabrics (5)/63 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, the cotton fabrics required in the manufacture of plasticis...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. T.i. Cycles of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1341DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, against the Order No. A-1477/B1-311/82 dated 25-10-1982 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, under which he has allowed the claim for rebate of duty paid on cycles exported outside the country as provided in Rule 173PP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise has been authorised to file this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 35B. The main contentions advanced by the learned representative on behalf of the appellant is that the goods under claim for rebate were not exported directly from the factory of the manufacturer as provided under sub-rule (13) of Rule 173PP. It has further been urged that the form for removal of goods for export namely AR 4A was not made out and addressed to the Central Excise Officer, but this was made out long ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1315DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, filed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Dn.Chandrapur at Nagpur against the order No. 1038/NG-71/82 dated 27-7-1982 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay under which he has allowed the first appeal of M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd., and permitted them to avail of proforma credit of duty on sodium sulphate under item 68 which is used by M/s Ballarpur Industries Pvt.Ltd., in the manufacture of paper in their factory. The Asstt.Collector has been authorised to file this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur. The learned departmental representative for the appellants has contended that sodium sulphate for which the credit of duty has been claimed is used in converting black liquor into white liquor. It is thus used for regeneration of spent chemical and not used directly in the manufacture of paper. It has also been argued that sodium sulphate is used in the recovery se...
Tag this Judgment!Ordnance Factory Through Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1309DTri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri M.K. Tiwari, Asstt. Foreman of the Ordnance Factory (Ambajhani Nagpur) appears in respect of Revision Application dated 13Lh September, 77 filed before the Government of India against the order dated 28th February, 1977 vide order No. S/49-963/76 GS. The Revision Application is reproduced below: ITC Classification is not agreed to. The stores arc circular sewing. machine complete with standard accessories. These are correctly assessable under ICT 72 b @ 35%. Thus duty payable is Rs. 11.726.O5P. Excess duty levied amounting to Rs. 8375-75P is therefore refundable. BE forwarded to your GS Section alongwith our claim has been retained by them which may please be claimed for from them and linked at your end. Custom attested invoice, specification to invoice packing list and a set of Instruction manual containing Catalogue are enclosed.2. We like to observe that when adjudication is sought in appeal, the language should be like a prayer and not issuing order.3. As far as the classi...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Ordnance Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1313DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Embarkation Headquarters claimed refund of duty on behalf of General Manager, Ordnance Factory (Bandara) in relation to import of goods vide Bill of Entry No. GSI No. 30 dated 4.1.1974, on the ground that the goods were parts of Ammonia Compressors and, therefore, were assessable under ICT 72(3) at the rate of 30% (F.N. 10) plus 5% R D.The refund claim was turned down by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Stores Section) vide order dated 13th January, 1975 on the ground that catalogue and literature were not produced, 2. Before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, the appellant reiterated its claim and cited Notification No. 81/73 of 29.7.73. The appeal was, however, rejected on the same ground as by the Assistant Collector that in the absence of catalogue or literature it was difficult to verify and accept the claim.3. In relation to the revision application filed before the Government of India and which is being heard as appeal by this Tribunal, on 31st March, 1983 o...
Tag this Judgment!Dipen Enterprise Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1338DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act filed by M/s. Dipen Enterprises against the order No. S/23-B-Air-709/tOPAS dated 24-7-81 of the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bombay and Order No.S/49-545/81-PA dated 6-9-82 of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, levying and upholding respectively a fine of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of confiscation of 46 post parcels containing Telephone Diallers and Toll Call Restrictors valued at Rs. 71,749/-. The learned Advocate who appeared for the appellants stated that he has filed copies of the invoices which would indicate the value of diallers at Rs. 30,295/- and the value of the parts of telephone restrictors at Rs. 41,454/-raaking a total of Rs. 71,749/-. In reply from the Bench he clarified that the goods were not imported as assembled units. He explained that the import of the goods in question had been made under the OGL in Appendix 10, Sr. No. 4 as permissible spares other than those included in Appendix 3. The appellants had...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »