Mumbai Court January 1998 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.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT159Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment described as spare parts of digital display and puncher device in June, 1988 and cleared it on payment of duty on the assessable value arrived on the basis of the declared invoice value plus freight and insurance charges. It subsequently filed a claim for refund of part of the duty paid on the ground that the goods were reimported after repair and that the duty payable therefore in terms of Notification 204/76-Cus. should be on the basis of fair cost of repairs and to and fro freight and insurance charges. The Assistant Collector of Customs declined to sanction the refund. He said that the identity of the goods at the time of importation had to be established with reference to the export documents, which has not been done, evidence of the cost of repairs, and the certificate of the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) were not produced.2. The importer carried the matter in appeal. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the finding of t...
Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT178Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard Shri D. Gurnard, the Id. DR who reiterated the grounds of appeal. The respondents are absent who have sent a written submission to indicate that the issue has been decided by Order of this Bench No. 1383/96/WRB, dated 16-4-19%. We find that the question here is regarding the eligibility to Modvat credit of input material chemicals used in the phosphating plant of the Respondents who are manufacturer of motor vehicles. Identical issue has been disposed off by this Bench in its Order No. 1338/96-WRB, dated 16-4-1996 1997 (91) E.L.T. 597 (Tribunal)] wherein the Tribunal has held that the motor vehicle parts have to be subjected to phosphate coating in the painting shop for ensuring their quality and hence held that chemicals used in such process cannot be dismissed as not used in the process of manufacture of the final products and hence the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Order in that case allowing Modvat credit.Following the Tribunal decision, in the pr...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pidilite Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT693Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II against the Order dated 7-7-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The brief facts are that the Respondents manufactures textile Auxiliaries, Chemicals, Dyes, Pigments. They filed a classification list in March 1982 classifying 12 of their products as Synthetics Resins under Item 15A(1) of the old Central Excise Tariff. However, they claimed classification thereto under Tariff Item 68 with a remark "According to us these products fall under Tariff Item 68. But due to budgetary changes of 1982-83, doubt is raised about its classification under Tariff Item 68. In order to reserve our right of refund, we will pay duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) under protest." The classification list was approved by the Asstt.Collector of Central Excise Division III on 2-6-1982 classifying their product under Tariff 15A(1). Subsequently following a Tariff Advice dated 10-5-1982, the Respondents file...
D.J. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee manufactured and sold collapsible aluminium tubes.These tubes were packed-in corrugated card board cartons when removed from its factory. The question arose as to whether the cost of such packing was includible in the assessable value of the aluminium tubes.Notice was issued to it proposing recovery of duty alleged to have been short paid by not including the cost in the assessable value. In its reply, the assessee took the stand that after tubes reached the consignee, the consignees empties the contents of the corrugated card board boxes and returned them to it. These boxes or cartons were reused by the assessee for further packing the goods manufactured by it. It therefore said that the goods were durable and returnable. It stated that it had already, by its letter of 9 February, 1987, informed the Superintendent of Central Excise that the cartons were being returned to it and it stated that out of 55,000 boxes supplied by it from March, 1986 to January, 1987,29,000 ...
Telco Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT689Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. It uses a large number of components for such manufacture. It is stated that before any raw materials are issued for manufacture out of any particular batch the parts are subjected to what is described as destructive testing.These parts are subjected to stresses and strains in order to test their tensile strength and other qualities upto a point where the stress on them is greater than they have withstood, and they break or get so distorted that they cannot be put to use. After testing the remnants of these parts are cleared as scrap on payment of duty appropriate to scrap. The appellant had taken Modvat credit of the duty paid on these inputs. The department was of the view that the conversion of the parts which were tested into scrap did not take place during the course of manufacture and that therefore the benefit of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57D will not be available to these goods. Notice was issued demanding recovery of the duty e...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›