Mumbai Court November 1996 Judgments
Josco International Shipping Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT457Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of Collector of Customs, Mumbai made in Order No. S/6-241/60-Admn, dated 7-11-1994.2. The appellants were the firm registered under the Partnership Act.They were performing the functions of clearing agents holding a Custom House Agent licence issued in 1973 or thereabout. The licence was regularly renewed from time to time. The last regular renewal was for the period ending 31st December, 1990. The appellants had, as usual, applied for the renewal of the licence for a period of three years in September, 1990. However instead of renewing the licence the Deptt.verbally asked the appellants to produce certain records. On 10th January, 1991, the Assistant Collector of Customs renewed the licence up to 31st January, 1991. The appellants had three partners Elwyn D'Souza, Jose Mukaden and William D'Souza. Jose Mukaden died on 19th August, 1991. It appeared Elwyn D'Souza became old and did not want to continue as a partner. Wil...
Tag this Judgment!Magicut Tools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1996
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT422Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in this appeal is, whether 'too bit blanks' manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Heading 8202.10 as tools. In the order impugned in the appeal, it has been held that they are so classifiable.2. It is the contention of the appellant that in form in which they are cleared, the goods have not acquired the essential characteristics of tools and substantial processing such as grinding, edge-sharpening, grooving etc. has to be carried out by the purchaser of the goods before they can be used as tools. The appellant, therefore, disputes the applicability of Rule 2(a) of Rules of Interpretation of the Tariff to this product.3. The departmental representative says that the goods have acquired the essential characteristics of tools and hence the applicability of Rule 2(a) of Rules of Interpretation has been rightly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. The Commissioner (Appeals) agrees that the goods are not ready for use but says that they have acquired the essen...
Tag this Judgment!Tarapur Packaging Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)(70)LC401Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dt. 19.7.1989, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, who has held that the machine declared in the Bill of Entry is "Double Layer PE/PP Lamination Machine Model FK/LA-100-5 together with Accessories" as covered under Serial No. 18(ii)(2). He has held that processes carried out by the machine may be carried out on one line or equipment and these are known as "extrusion coating and laminating". He has held this type of equipments are covered under Serial No. 16(2) of Appendix 1-B, Policy AM 1985-88 under the description of "Modern Lamination/Coating Machine" and that they cannot be covered under Serial No. 18(ii)(2) of Appendix 1-B of the Policy AM 1985-88 which reads as under: Multilayer Coater/Extruder cast Film line including auxiliary units namely, slitting, winding, treating.He has held that the machinery in question is not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus. under Serial No. 32 which reads as under...
Tag this Judgment!Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpoartion ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1141Bom
1. This appeal arises out of the proceeding under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Order dated August 18, 1995 in application ESI No. 14190. Tle appellant Mls Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. is a registered company having Code No. 331505 1. It i is stated that the appellant company engages contractors in the Double Wall Workers Glass 1 Division and the workers of the said Glass Division are the employees of the contractors who 10,, work on different machines and give desired, production as per the specifications of the company. The wages of the contract labourers are i paid by the respective contractors and that the 1 appellant company is not the employer of those 15 i employees. The contractors disburse the wages to the contract labourers and that contractor obtains receipt for the payment of the wages from 1 the employees. It is the case of the appellant that 1 as per the policy of the appellant company, 201 whenever an urgency occurred on account of i the m...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilisers Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT82Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures in its polymer units methyl methacrylate monomer (MMA). One of the raw materials for the manufacture of MMA is concentrated sulphuric acid. After manufacture of MMA, a residue remains in the vessel in which a final reaction takes place, which is called 'kettle residue'. It is stated that this residue contains sulphuric acid to the extent of about 15%. The appellant transferred this residue which is in the form of spent acid to a different section of its unit, where it was converted into ammonium sulphate used as fertilizer. It was not disputed that the department has not demanded duty on the kettle residue.2. Notice was issued to the appellant in April, 1995 proposing reversal of the Modvat credit taken on the duty paid on sulphuric acid used for the manufacture of MMA to the extent of the acid contained in the kettle residue. The reason advanced was that since kettle residue is used in the manufacture of ammonium sulphate, which is exempted from duty as ...
Tag this Judgment!G.E. Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT592Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported polyphenylene ether and polyphenylene oxide (PPE & PPO) and cleared through Bombay Customs. The goods have been brought into the factory and took Modvat credit on them. This was objected to by the department on the ground that the declaration under Rule 57G did not include this product and that PPO which was declared was different from this product. Following the issue of notice, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order confirming this view and ordering recovery of credit taken.2. The Commissioner in his order declined to accept the contention of the assessee that there was no different between PPE & PPO and this was the argument taken by the departmental Representative. The HSN explanatory notes and technical dictionaries indicate that the two products are the same. During the adjudication, the goods were tested and the Dy. Chief Chemist who was consulted has stated on 19-4-1995 that PPE & PPO are one and the same. The goods have been class...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay N. Desai Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT448Tri(Mum.)bai
1. With the consent of both sides, we take up the appeal itself for disposal by office granting waiver of pre-deposit.2. Notice was issued by the Customs House on 26-12-1991, proposing imposition of penalty on the appellant for the reason that he was concerned with the importation of the goods which were liable to confiscation.3. The appellant did not file reply to the show cause. Notice of hearing was sent to the appellant fixing the date of hearing before the Commissioner on 24-8-1992. It is contended that the appellant sent the reply seeking adjournment. Subsequently, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the order was issued on 30-11-1993, without intimating the appellant of any further date of hearing. It is, therefore, contended that the order has been passed without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard.4. The matter had come up before us a number of time, since we felt that sufficient opportunity should be given to both the sides to establish whether or ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Tukaram Dandgaval (deceased by LR's) and Others Vs. Sumatilal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom206; 1997(2)BomCR688
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th April, 1980 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 202 of 1977 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik. The suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale (Exh. 26) of the suit property being City Survey Nos. 1936, 1537, 1545 and 1546, admeasuring 117-1 sq. meters, situated at Satana, District Nasik owned by defendant Nos. 1 to 4-appellants herein. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the appellants defendants contracted to sell the said house for Rs. 30,000/- to defendant No.5 Somnath Kachu Kharote and an amount was to be paid in the presence of Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. It is alleged that the appellants-defendants had agreed to execute and complete the sale deed in the name of any person as per the wish of the defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 5 had given Rs. 5000/- to the appellants - defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as earnest money, on 15th February, 1976. It...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Shankar Walvekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR369
N.D. VYAS, J.1. As the facts and the questions involved in both the writ petitions are common, they have been directed to be heard together. By this common Judgment, both the writ petitions are disposed of. By Writ Petition No. 5960 of 1988 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, dated 5th July 1988 whereby petitioner's Execution Application was dismissed and he has also prayed for setting aside of the order passed by the State of Maharashtra dated 1st October, 1984 in its Urban Development Department and has prayed for restoration of the order dated 31st March, 1984 passed by the same department earlier. By Writ Petition No. 173 of 1989 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has again prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 1st October, 1984 and also prayed for quashing the communication dated 16th July, 1986 received from the said Depa...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar D. Govindani Vs. the Collector of Pune and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR633; (1996)98BOMLR681
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule Returnable forthwith. Mr. Parsurami, Assistant Government Pleader waives service for respondents No. 1 to 3. By consent writ petition is heard finally.2. The petitioner in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India questions the correctness of the order dated 24-7-96 passed by the Collector, Pune suspending petitioner's FL-I licence under section 54(1)(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and, the order passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai dated 4-10-96.3. The petitioner states that he carries on business of wholesale foreign liquor and was granted FL-I licence under the provisions of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 framed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It appears that the petitioner purchased 500 boxes of foreign liquor from M/s. Amit Wine Agencies on 4th August-1995. According to petitioner these 500 boxes were sent to him by M/s. Amit Wine Agencies on bill accompanied by tra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »