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.
Amforge Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC558Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are two appeals: one filed by M/s. Amforge Industries Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'AIL'), and the other filed by the Revenue, both being aggrieved with the same order in original dated 10.5.1989, passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. As both the appeals arise out of the same order-in-original, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. AIL had imported the machinery which they declared as 'used'. For Import Trade Control (ITC) purposes, the machinery imported was claimed to be covered by the Open General Licence (OGL). On examination of the consignment by the customs, it was found that in addition to the machinery declared, one additional machine - Material Handling Equipment - had also been imported. This machine - Material Handling Equipment had not been declared in the import documents. The machines imported being more than 7 years old were not found eligible for import under OGL. The value was also alleged to be mis-decla...
Collr. of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Indo-nippon Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT985Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara has filed this appeal against the order dated 23-4-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The Respondents filed an application under Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise Rules before the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division IV, seeking permission to remove Di-Ethyl-Phthalate as an input for manufacturing of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol at another factory and bringing that Denatured Ethyl Alcohol which will be used as a raw-material for the manufacture of Di-Ethyl-Phthalate. The Asstt.Commissioner found that Di-Ethyl-Phthalate has been utilised for the denaturing of Ethyl Alcohol and this product is the final product for the other factory and it is an input for the respondent. The Asstt.Collector held that such type of manufacturing is not covered by Rule 57F(2) and accordingly he rejected the application from the respondent.The Commissioner (Appeals), however, found that ...
Smzs Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC422Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 4.31 lacs and penalty of Rs. 43,000/-.2. Representative for the applicant says that the demand follows on the finding of the Commissioner that cement, iron and steel, structural and cables are not capital goods, for the reason that, they form part of the plant and the plant being immovable property is not excisable. He says that there is no requirement under Rule 57Q that for credit to be taken on inputs, the plant or machinery of which items form part should necessarily be dutiable although the requirement is that finished excisable goods manufactured, of such plant etc. must be dutiable. He however offers to keep the unutilised sum of Rs. 1.00 lac in the RG 23A account.3. The Departmental Representative says that the interim order of the Tribunal in Indo Rama v. CCE in which it has been observed that cement and steel cannot prima facie be considered to be parts of machinery should applied. She says that it is evident that...
Welspun Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT551Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The importer imported in 1994 a consignment of four Barmag second hand FK-16 Draw Texturising machines and three of Barmag second hand draw twister machines. It had been given a licence under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. The licence permitted import of 4 second hand Barmag draw texturising machines, Serial Nos. specified and manufactured in 1984 and 3 second hand Barmag draw twister machines Serial Nos. specified also manufactured in 1984. After the goods arrived the importer informed the Customs House, that it did not propose to avail the benefit of Customs Notification 160/92. This notification permits, clearance at concessional rate of duty or nil rate of duty, depending on the circumstances of goods imported under the EPCG Scheme and covered by the licence issued under the policy. The goods were permitted to be released on bond. Subsequently, the Custom House was of the view that the import of the machines would not be covered by the licence produced as the...
Arvind Mechanical and Elect. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT803Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these appeals, the appellants in their declaration have declared inputs for the final products manufactured by them viz. aluminium sheets as covered by sub-heading 7605.90. Subsequently on 1-4-1988 they have filed another declaration under Rule 57G for aluminium sheets under sub-heading 7606.10 and explained that it was necessitated by the changes brought in the tariff by the 1988 budget. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit taken on duty paying documents issued after 1-4-1988 on the ground that the classification was different from the classification given in the Modvat declaration. The Assistant Commissioner's order was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to the present appeal.2. None is present for the appellants and the Consultant Shri P.S.Kalve has sought adjournment and earlier Counsel on record has now withdrawn.3. We have heard Shri V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR for the revenue. It is now well settled by series decisions of t...
Madhukar Sagun Karpe (Deceased) by Heirs Vs. Institute of Public Assis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR101
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the advocates for the parties. Admit. By consent, the revision application is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 16th August 1997 whereby the executing Court had allowed the application of the respondent for attachment of the two plots belonging to the petitioners for the recovery of money due to the respondent under Decree dated 20th July 1988 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 134/84/A. The records disclose that the respondent herein filed Special Civil Suit No. 134/84/A against one Madhukar Sagun Karpe for the recovery of money which was decreed by the said Decree dated 20th July 1988 and since the amount thereunder was not paid, the respondent herein filed the execution application. Meanwhile said Madhukar Karpe expired on 3rd August 1991 and, therefore, the execution application was filed against the petitioners who are the legal representatives of said Madhukar Ka...
Madhukar Sugan Karpe (Deceased) Through His Lrs/Heirs Vs. Institute of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR104
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. By the present petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 15th July 1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 15/96/A in Execution Application No. 7/93/A. The facts in brief are that a Special Civil Suit No. 134/84/A was instituted by the respondent herein against one Mr. Madhukar Sagun Karpe, the predecessor of the petitionersherein for recovery of money which was decreed by Decree dated 20th July 1988. Meanwhile one Smt. Anandibai Raghunath Pangam while adopting the petitioner No. 1(c) as her adopted son by Deed of Gift dated 20th April 1987 gifted one plot, being plot 'D' ot her property Xir situated at Sanquelim Village and by another Gift Deed also gifted another plot, being plot 'B' to the petitioner 1(b). On 3rd August 1991 said Madhukar Karpe expired and he was survived by the present petitioners as his legal representatives. Some time in 1993 the respondent herein filed. Executi...
Laxman N. Divekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom176; 1998(1)ALLMR688; 1998(3)BomCR291; (1998)1BOMLR495; 1998(1)MhLj745
ORDERP.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Mr. Kansara, Assistant Government Pleader waives service for respondent.2. By consent rule is taken up on Board for final hearing at this stage.3. The only question that falls for determination in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the Court below committed an error of jurisdiction in condoning the delay of more than 750 days? The suit filed by the petitioner Laxman N. Divekar (for short 'the plaintiff') against the respondent herein, namely, the State of Maharashtra (for short 'the defendant') for perpetual injunction and declaration in challenging the award was decreed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati on 2-3-1991. The said judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati, was challenged by the defendant in appeal filed on 18-12-1993 before the Additional District Judge, Baramati. The appeal was barred by more than 750 days and accordingly an applicati...
Jayant Kumar and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 2004(165)ELT277(Bom)
ORDER1. The Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India : 1989(43)ELT189(SC) . In the said case, the Court has held as under :-'The provisions of Section 15 are clear in themselves. The date on which a Bill of Entry is presented under Section 46 is, in the case of goods entered for home consumption, the date relevant for determining the rate of duty and tariff valuation. Where the Bill of Entry is presented before the date of Entry Inwards of the vessel, the Bill of Entry is deemed to have been presented on the date of such Entry Inwards.'The Court has also held that 'the date of entry inwards of the vessel' is the date, recorded as such in the Customs register.2. In view of the aforesaid law enunciated by the Supreme Court, there is no substance in this Petition.3. In the result, Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.4. Interim relief stands vacated....
Kusum Trading Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT353(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J. 1. It is the contention of the Petitioners that they imported 100 metric tonnes of Turkish Chick Peas. For this purpose, the Petitioners entered into a contract in the month of August 1988. The said goods were shipped on board the vessel M.V. RODANTHI for carriage from Mersin (Turkey) to Bombay. The vessel was expected to arrive in Bombay on 29th September 1988. The Petitioners filed a Bill of Entry on 6th October, 1988 for clearance of the said goods. At that time, in terms of Notification No. 129 of 1976, Customs duty at the rate of 10% was leviable. However, the vessel came in inner anchorage on 2nd October 1988 at 0640 hours and was granted 'entry inwards' on 3rd October 1988. It is the submission of the Petitioners that on or about 4th October 1988, reports appeared in the newspapers that Notification No. 129/76 was amended by Notification No. 286/88 and duty of pulses was increased from 10% to 35% ad valorem. It is contended that no Extraordinary gazette of India ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »