Mumbai Court December 1998 Judgments
Cce Vs. Weld Flux Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1998
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC525Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the findings of the Collector (Appeals) who placing reliance on the CEGAT Order No. 280/88-Bl dt. 2.5.1988 in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Universal Radiators Limited held that "I have considered the facts and records of the case together with the records of personal hearing. I am fully in agreement with the rationale adopted by the CEGAT. The department has nowhere pointed out that Notice under Section 11A was issued to the appellant in time. In the absence of any such notice, I find no reason to accept the appeal of the department. It is rejected." 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the fespondents are manufacturers of M.S. Copper coated steel wires. They filed a refund claim on account of approval of classification list. The Asst, Collector sanctioned the refund claim. Tine Collector (Appeals) set aside the order on the ground that the principles of natural justice had not been followed and directed the Asst. Collector to readjudicate the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Kolhapur Steel Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT719Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune made in Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/67/98, dated 12-6-1998 confirming the Order-in-Original No. V(Mod Dem) 15 194/Adj/96/1226, dated 22-12-1996 made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel castings falling under Chapter Headings 72,73 & 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 They were availing Modvat credit of duty on various inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The inputs amongst other things were light diesel oil.They have filed declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules sometime on 18-10-1994. A show cause notice was issued on 1-5-1996 stating that the appellants did not file any declaration. A reply was filed. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 22-12-1996 rejected the contention. In fact in...
Tag this Judgment!Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT901Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the importer against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Mum-bai made in the impugned order, whereunder, he dismissed the appeal of the appellant who requested the Collector (Appeals) to reverse the finding of the adjudicating authority enhancing the value.2. The appellant imported a consignment of 500 kg of edible acid casein 30 mesh from France by air and sought its clearance under Bill of Entry Thoka No. 9298 dated 30-1-1991. The invoice No. 90110069 dated 16-1-1991 submitted alongwith the Bill of Entry showed the total value of the goods at US $ 3260 CIF with the break up cost US $ 1690 + FOB charges US $ 150 and freight charges US $ 1400 with insurance US $ 20.00. The importers declared in the Bill of Entry the FOB value US $ 1840.00 (cost - US $ 1690 + FOB charges US $ 150) and claimed the freight and insurance US $ 386.70 @ 21.125% of the said declared FOB value. The authorities below sought to enhance the value for purpose of assess...
Tag this Judgment!Hmg Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT444Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. HMG Industries Limited imported a second hand calendering machine. The relevant Import Policy 1992-97 in force prohibited import of second hand machine without a licence except where specially allowed. Para 25 of the policy provided, that second hand capital goods may be imported without a licence in the sectors enumerated of which one was package and packaging material. Appellant claimed clearance under this provisions.2. The Collector did not agree. He said that the machinery for packaging industries are those which are required to make packaging for various products. The imported machine was used to impart a smooth and glossy finish to paper or paper board. The goods imported were therefore not machinery for packaging. He confiscated the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 15.00 lacs. The declared value of the machine was Rs. 37.77 lacs approximately. This order is assailed by both the department and the importer.3. We shall first consider the impo...
Tag this Judgment!Cc(P) Vs. Jayantilal Chokshi and Co. and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC321Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The following questions are proposed for reference to the High Court: (1) Was the Hon'ble Tribunal correct in arriving at the conclusion ibid that considering the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra and without distinguishing the same in case of Tribunal so deemed fit? (2) Is it open in law to Hon'ble Tribunal to hear an appeal from a person who is not a aggrieved person in the eyes of law in terms of Section 129A and grant a prayer/relief on an appeal of the order which does not cause and grievance to that person? For the sake of clarification, in the instant case, the applicant before Hon'ble Tribunal construed to be aggrieved only with the imposition of the penalty and not with the order relating to the confiscating of seized currency? 4. The correctness or otherwise of the Tribunal's decision is obviously not a question of law. Further, the Supreme Court's judgment in Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India 1996 (62) ECR 366 (SC) which, it contend...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Delta Lens Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for stay of the operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. In that order, he considered the lower segment varissol to be opthalmic blank covered by Notification 11/97.2. After hearing the Departmental Representative, we do not find any reason to stay the operation of the order. Neither the appeal nor the departmental representative are able to indicate how the goods in question are to be considered to be flint buttons, which in turn and how these are different from opthalmic blank specified in the notification. The reference to such blanks in the HSN Policy itself is prima facie no basis for denying the notification. Stay application is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Monita Containers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT851Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant's application dated 5-6-1989 for availing credit under Rule 57H on the duty paid on inputs received and lying in stock as such as contained in semi-finished and finished condition was only partially allowed by order of the Assistant Commissioner who limited the credit for the duty paid on inputs lying in stock as such. This order having been confirmed by Collector (Appeals), the appellant is now before the Tribunal.2. The appellant's contention is that there is nothing in Rule 57H to deny grant of credit on inputs which have been taken up for processing or are contained in the finished product and that the Tribunal's decision in C.C.E. v. Navdeep Packaging Industries -1994 (69) E.L.T.358 is in support of its claim.3. The Departmental Representative contends that the Tribunal's decision related to Rule 57 is stated to be in 1991 and should not be made applicable to the rule prior to its amendment in 1998.4. Rule 57H as it stood on 5-5-1998 before it was amended on 27-5...
Tag this Judgment!Tulshiram S/O Rawan Dhongade and Others Vs. Govind S/O Narayan Rao Chi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR618; 1999(2)BomCR629; 1999(2)MhLj440
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This is a petition filed by three members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nanded, whose election has been set aside in an appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. Elections to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nanded were announced by an Election Programme Published on 12-5-1997. The representative of the agriculturists residing in the Market Area were to be elected and out of them three were to be elected by the members of the Village Panchayat functioning in the Market Area. Out of these three members, one was to be a member belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were declared elected from this constituency. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as a person belonging to reserved categories for which the seat was reserved. The petitioner No. 2 and 3 were elected on the open seats.2. The election came to be challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Collector, Nanded, under Rule 88 of the Mahara...
Tag this Judgment!Essar Constructions Ltd. and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR685; 1999CriLJ1861; 1999(2)MhLj148
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Patwardhan for C.B.I, petitioner in Criminal Application No. 2616 of 1997 and for respondent in other applications and Mr. Chinoy for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 254 of 1996 and 257 of 1996 and for respondent in other application. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani for respondent No. 1 in Criminal Application No. 2616 of 1997, and learned A.P.P. for the State.2. Out of these three applications, Criminal Application No. 2616 of 1997 and Criminal Revision Application No. 254 of 1996 have been filed by C.B.I, and Essar Constructions Ltd. respectively against the order of Special Judge (A.S. Aguiar) dated 12-8-1996 discharging applicant-accused No. 1 in Misc. Application No. 641/1996 and applicants -accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Misc. Applications Nos. 681 and 682 of 1996 respectively for the offences under section 120-B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly application No. 257 has been filed by petitioner Ravikant Nandkishore Ruia ag...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajarathinam and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)407; 1999(2)ALLMR261; 1999(5)BomCR308
ORDERD. G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. G.S. Hegde for the petitioners in all the petitions and Mr. Adik Shirodkar for the original complainant respondents and A.P.P. for the State.2. Question involved in Petition No. 763/98, 764/98, 794/98 are identical and that is if the notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (in short N.I. Act) is not given to the company and if for that reason company cannot be made accused in complaint case then whether the Directors of that company can be made liable and can be made accused. Question involved in Petition No. 765/98 and 766/98 is whether the Director who has resigned from his post as Director can be proceeded against under sections 138 or 141 of the N.I. Act. These questions were formulated on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Hegde for the petitioners.3. Out of these five petitions, Writ Petition No. 794/98 is filed by M/s. PRA Investments Ltd. and other petitions have been filed by P. Rajarathinam. So far as Petition No....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »