Mumbai Court May 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rollsprint (Packaging) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT489Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order-in-original dated 30-1-1992 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Baroda. The Appellants, viz., M/s. Rollsprint (Packaging) Ltd. vide their application dated 15-5-1996 prayed for change in the title of their appeal from M/s. Rollosprint (Packaging) Ltd. to M/s. Contemporary Packaging Pvt. Ltd., on account of the transfer of rights and liabilities of the former to the latter.2. The short facts leading to the issue of the impugned order are as follows.3. On a visit to the factory of the appellants, the Excise officers found excess stock of dutiable goods valued at Rs. 2,63,157/-.Examination of the Modvat accounting showed that credit amounting to Rs. 3,22,823 /- was taken on gate passes which was neither in the name of the appellants nor were endorsed to them. After giving the appellants a hearing, the Addl. Collector ordered reversal of the Modvat credit wrongly taken. He also directed them to pay an equivalent amount as duty...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT521Tri(Mum.)bai
1. During hearing of the arguments pertaining to the stay application, it became clear that the main matter could be disposed of at this stage itself.2. Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. JDR appearing for Revenue and Shri P.D.Lele appearing for the Respondents, had no objection to the final disposal of the matter.3. The present Appeal from the Revenue arises out of the order of the Collector (Appeals), Indore dated 6-2-1996, in which he has held that the EOT Crane used by the respondents for transporting molten metal from the furnace to the casting machine was capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.4. The sole point made by the ld. JDR was that such cranes were specifically included within the ambit of the said Rule by virtue of Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995, and thus before this date, the benefit was not available to such cranes. The respondents on the other hand say that the EOT Cranes can be used for transportation of finished goods from t...
Beepee Coating Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT72Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the appellants appeal on merits they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,97,078/- towards the duty and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the penalty.2. Mr. Willingdon, the ld. Advocate, submits that the applicants are the subsidiary company of M/s. Berger Paints Ltd. at Kalapat, and by virtue thereof, the goods purchased by M/s. Berger Paints were being delivered directly at the applicant's factory for the purpose of manufacture of paints. Some of the goods were received under the invoices, which were in the name of M/s. Berger Paints Ltd. with the address of the said firm shown as the one of the present applicant, and under the bona fide belief they took the Modvat credit on those documents. When the objection was raised as to the availability of those documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit, M/s. Berger Paints Ltd. issued separate invoices and affidavits were also obtained from the suppliers to indicate that the goods covered under those invoices were directly de...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. GlIndia Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC189Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals have a common issue and hence both the appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.In both the appeals, the basic question is : the respondents who are the manufacturers of P.P. Medicines, were using the glass bottles for purpose of marketing the products. The glass bottles are eligible for availment of Modvat credit and as such they were availing the Modvat credit. However, the credit is sought to be denied on the ground that glass bottles which were broken during the bottling of P.P. medicines, go as waste and the same cannot be treated as manufacturing waste eligible for availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules.2. Both the authorities below, however, negatived the allegation by the Department and allowed the Modvat credit. The revenue have, however, come in appeals.3. Shri Gurdeep Singh, the ld. DR, submits that the glass bottles which were broken were not those which were used for purpose of packin...
Collector of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT75Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from the revenue is against the captioned order in appeal, holding that the part of the demand is time barred.2. 11 show cause notices were issued against the respondents claiming total amount of Rs. 18,34,441.75 for the period between 15-6-1981 to 31-6-1984. All the demands were confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner and in the appeal preferred before the Collector (Appeals), while confirming the demands, he held that an amount of Rs. 1,02,710.15 being the duty demanded vide show cause notice dated 1-2-1982 was hit by the period of limitation as the show cause notice was not within the period of six months and there was no allegation of suppression so as to invoke the extended period.3. Shri Gurdeep Singh, the ld. JDR, submits that prior to the issue of some show cause notices, the Department also vide their letters dated 16-6-1981, 20-7-1981 and 21-8-1981, called upon the respondents to make the payments and those letters ought to have been read as part of this show cau...
Colfax Labs (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT71Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As a common issue is involved in all these appeals, I proposed to dispose of the same by this common order.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has rejected all the above appeals on the ground that court fee stamp of 50 paise on the order-in-original, is not affixed and that the duty amount has not been deposited in compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act.3. Shri M.P. Baxi, the ld. advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that they had affixed stamp of Re. 1 instead of 50 paise and no notice of rejection of the appeals has been served on the appellants.He has also stated that the duty amount has been deposited.5. The defect of non-affixing the court fee stamp is a remedial defect and defect memo could have been issued. For rejection under Section 35F of the Act, Notice to show cause has to be issued which, appears to have not been issued. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given the finding on merits and hence I set aside...
Dawn Apparels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the captioned order in appeal confirming the Order-in-Original dated 21-9-1984, where the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected as time barred.2. Shri Patil, the ld. advocate, appearing for the appellants, submits that pursuant to the decision of the Gujarat High Court, they realised that the duty paid during the period from 1-3-1975 to 28-2-1981 was wrongly paid and was under the mistake of law and therefore, they filed a claim for refund on 28-10-1983. In his submission, Rule 233B was introduced on 1-6-1981 and as such, for the duty paid earlier, procedural requirement of Rule 233B was not called for. He has referred to the classification lists filed on 9-7-1980, 9-8-1980 and has submitted that they have claimed for Nil rate of duty. In his submission, even the classification lists and covering letter ought to be taken as raising a protest and hence, the duty paid thereafter, in any case, will be saved from the operation of limitation p...
Maharashtra Metal Powders Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT87Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.PPM-155/NG-27/88, dated 18-4-1988, confirming the Order-in-Original No.V (27-8) 3-16/86/1690, dated 2-3-1987. Raising the demand of Rs. 3,54,696/- by way of dis-allowing the deemed credit taken by the Appellants. The appellants availed of the benefit of Notification No.342/1/88-TRO, dated 1-6-1989. It was however felt that the appellants were not eligible for the deemed credit facility as vide Notification No. 182/84 waste and scrap of aluminium was exempt from payment of duty, and as such was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. The demand was therefore raised which was contested by the appellants. However rejecting the contentions raised, it was held that the item was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid, and hence the deemed credit facility was not available, and hence the Modvat credit availed of was not justified. The said order was confirmed in appeal.2. Shri R.G. Sheth the ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that...
R.R. Windal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT174Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these Appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.V-Adj (68)15-32/85/84, dated 23-1-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay-II. Directing the appellants to pay the duty to the extent of Rs. 8,71,135.38 and also imposing personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the firm, besides ordering confiscation of the goods seized and also of plant and machinery of M/s. R.R. Windal.2. The ld. Advocate submits that the Notice for listing the matter for hearing on 21-7-1986 was served on them on 17-7-1986, and on the next day i.e. 18th the Advocate on record went to the Office of Collector and because, the Collector was not available, submitted an application for adjournment in the Office. However as a precaution, on 21-7-1986 one Junior Advocate was sent to the Office of Collector for ensuring that the adjournment was granted. The ld. Collector insisted on the said Junior Advocate to argue the matter, and because he was so compelled, he read out what was written in th...
Geeta Valves and Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT672Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-original cited above. In the said order, The Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda held that goods totally valued at Rs. 30,27,716/- alleged to have been illicitly manufactured by the appellants and shown as cleared by . Process Control during the years 1980-81 to 1983-84 are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 and has confirmed the demand for Rs. 2,61,418.50 on the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 7.50 lakh has also been imposed on the appellants.2.1 . Geeta Valves are having a factory for manufacture of various types of valves. It is a private limited company having four directors.. Process Control is a partnership firm having three of the directors of . Geeta Valves and one minor son of the fourth director, as partners. It is also registered as a SSI unit for the manufacture of various types of valves, they have filed a declaration for availing exemption from licensing control, stating that they are e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »