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.
Samyak Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT564Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.M-1246-1251/BD-547-557/86, dated 5-5-1987, confirming the Order-in-Original No. 30/67 refund. The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 12,11,585.87p. on 2-1-1985 for the duty paid on LDPE Bags for a period on 1-4-1982 to 20-7-1984. They pleaded that they were not hit by period of limitation as the duty was paid under protest. The department objected to the said claim on the ground that the appellant had failed to follow their procedure laid down in Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules and also they had passed the burden of duty on to the customers.Show Cause Notice was therefore issued. The appellants pleaded that they had duly complied with the requirement of paying the duty under protest and the issue of unjust enrichment did not arise. The Assistant Collector rejected the entire claim in the Appeal before the Collector (Appeals), he held that the refund claim filed by the appellants beyond the period of 6 months from the ...
Roha Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT570Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the above mentioned order-in-appeal setting aside the order-in-original dated 7-4-1986 dropping the show cause notice raising the demands on the ground that the refund granted was erroneous.2. There existed some dispute as to the valuation of the manufactured item and the provisional assessments were made. The provisional assessments were finalised on 23-8-1983 and the appellants vide their applications dated 12-2-1984 and 13-2-1984 along with other claims, have filed claims for the subject refunds, which were sanctioned vide Assistant Commissioner's order dated 2-1-1986. Subsequently, however, show cause notice dated 7-4-1986 was issued alleging that the refund claim for a period from 1-3-1983 to 24-7-1987 filed on 12-2-1984 and 13-2-1984 was barred by limitation and the refund sanctioned was erroneous. The adjudicating authority vide his order dated 7-4-1986, however, dropped the show cause notice. The Department, therefore, went in appeal and the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Parmesh Silk Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT562Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Invoking the provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, the Department has sought for reference on the issue as framed by them, representing to be the issue of law arising out of the Order No. 29CB/95-WRB, dated 20-11-1995 in Appeal No. E/224/88-Bom, where the issue involved was of ordering confiscation and imposition of penalty when the duty demand was raised under the provisions of Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. This Bench vide the impugned order followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills v. Union of India now reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 and on the decision of the Tribunal in Syntex Processor v.Collector of Central Excise - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 386 (Tribunal) and set aside the confiscation as also the penalty amount. "Whether the Man-made Fabrics which are excisable goods and on which Additional Duty of Excise is payable in terms of Section 3(2) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of S...
Bharat Gears Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC61Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the above mentioned order in appeal confirming the order in original dated 6-1-1988, denying the Modvat credit on the ground that the appellants were not eligible for availing the Modvat credit on the items manufactured by them.2. Shri Gautam Doshi, the ld. Chartered Accountant, appearing for the appellants, submits that they have manufactured gears and cleared them on payment of appropriate duty. Because the gears were defective, they were rejected by the customers. They received the same back in their factory with duty paying documents from the customers and used them as inputs for manufacture of another item. He submits that they have filed a declaration under Rule 57G showing the defective gears as inputs used for further manufacturing process and accordingly they manufactured new gears out of the same and removed them on payment of appropriate duty.According to them, they are eligible to avail Modvat credit for the duty paid on those gears. He s...
Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT383Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment of steel rollers, as a replacement part of the machinery installed in its plant for the manufacture of Chipboard. It claimed clearance of these goods under the provisions of OGL Appendix 6(4) of the Import Policy for 1984-85. The Addl. Collector of Customs held that the rollers would be covered by the description in entry 446 of Appendix 3 Pt. A of the Policy, and therefore required an import licence which was not produced. He therefore confiscated the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant's representative contends that since the goods were imported as spares, they would not fall under Appendix 3, as the heading to that Appendix specifically excludes spares of iron and steel and ferro alloys. In addition, he says, that the goods in question are not specifically included in entry 446. Therefore, by application of Sub-para 5 (241), the goods could be imported as spares under Chapter 9 by it as...
Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT520Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.PKS-192/B-11/95, dated 22-5-1995. confirming the Order-in-Original No.VNC/IX/MISC/BHOR/5643-226/92, dated 6-6-1994 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division IX, Bombay-II ordering confiscation of the coated Cotton Fabrics under 3921.19.2. Shri J.M. Patel the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that during the said period, the issue was under consideration as to whether the items should be classified under 5903 or 3921.19. He submits that earlier under the Old Tariff Item it was classified under T.I. 19. He submits that now the issue has been settled by the Government and the Board has issued circular No. 161/72/95-CX, dated 13-12-1995. requiring the classification of the cloth under Heading 5903. He submits that the cases pending at the adjudication stage have been withdrawn and in view of the Board's direction, the order passed by the authority below which is the appealed against, ought to be set asid...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ankur Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT229Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against the captioned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai disposing off seven appeals filed by the Department invoking the provisions of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 against seven order-in-originals.2. As the issue involved in all the matters is the same, the ld.Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has dealt with all the appeals together and under the same circumstances, all the appeals are heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.3. Except in Appeal No. C/145/96, none of the respondents has appeared and they have sent intimation that the appeals may be heard in their absence. None of the respondents in the entire group of appeals, has filed any cross-objection.4. On various dates between 7-9-1993 and 4-7-1994, the respondents caused import of Poppy Seeds (Khas Khas) declared to be of Pakistani origin, at the declared price of Rs. 10/- per kg. Since khas khas is c...
Shetron Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC63Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the appellants Appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,88,176.86, and the penalty amount of Rs. 15,000/. The appellants submit that they have already deposited the penalty amount and the stay sought for is only in relation to the duty demanded.2. Mr. M.H. Patil, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that there are two companies which have common Directors and virtually work like sister concern. One Company imported certain items which were diverted to the present appellant and based on the documents in favour of the said Company namely M/s. Fibre Foils Ltd., they availed of modvat credit, but it was subsequently realized that documents being not in the name of the appellant, they could not have availed of the modvat credit, and hence they sent back the goods by issuance of gate passes on payment of appropriate duty, to the extent of the credit availed of by them, and thus, virtually reverse in Modvat credit which was availed of, Aft...
Shri Dadar (W. Rly) Sidhachakra Vs. Deputy Director of Investigation
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD253(Mum.)
1. The assessee in this case is a charitable trust. It was required to file a return of income according to provision of section 139(4A) on or before 31-10-1990. It was, however, filed on 16-4-1993. The D.D.I.(Exemption) held that there being a delay of 897 days, minimum penalty at Rs. 89,700 was imposable on the assessee. The assessee went in appeal and, interalia, argued before CIT(A) that as per law the return of income could be filed only till 31-3-1992 after which the proceedings became time barred and hence the D.D.I.(E) was not justified in imposing penalty by calculating the period of delay up to 16-4-1993. It had also claimed that it was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return but that ground was rejected by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), therefore, considered that the delay should be calculated up to 31-3-1992, i.e., 515 days and, therefor, reduced the penalty to Rs. 51,500.2. While the assessee has come in appeal before me the revenue is not in appeal ...
Roche Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT542Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. KVV - 516/90 B-III, dated 14-8-1990, confirming the Order-in-Original No. V. Gen.(30-Bud.) l/89/2484, dated 3-5-1990 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane III Division.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of bulk drugs, animal feed supplements etc. and they on 17-3-1988 filed application, vide Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, for availment of Modvat credit for Rs. 16,19,444.61 basic excise duty and Rs. 1490.14 special excise duty for the goods used as inputs for manufacture of their final product and lying in stock, on the date of their filing declaration under Rule 57G of the Rules, which also they filed on 17-3-1988. On due verification of records as also the declaration, jurisdictional Assistant Collector granted permission for the same vide his order dated 10-4-1989, restricting the availment of credit to Rs. 14,44,910.73 (basic) and Rs. 1,331.74 (special). Subsequently however, the said authorit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »