Mumbai Court May 1998 Judgments
Monopol Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT957Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of insulated copper wire, organic solvents and insulating varnishes. The goods mentioned above cleared on payment of duty and supplied to the customer are sometimes returned to the factory either for reconditioning or for resale. The appellant thereafter intimated the return of duty paid goods to the Central Excise Officer by filing D-3 under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly the appellant has filed four D-3 intimations showing therein the purpose of re-entry of duty paid goods in the factory.2. The appellant thereafter, cleared the goods on payment of duty through inadvertence, even though he was entitled to clear the goods without payment of duty as per Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules. The appellant paid the duty where he ought not to have paid duty. Hence four refund claims were filed by the Appellant for the amounts. While filing the refund claim in Appendix; 1 against the column "Grounds of Refund", the app...
Tag this Judgment!Kaivan Cosmetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT188Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures talcum powder. It sells its entire production to M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. Hence notice was issued proposing the assessable value of these goods to be the price at which they were sold by M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the proposal in the notice. Hence this appeal.2. Both the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) have applied the price at which the goods were sold by M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the transactions between the two parties were not between principals and therefore there is a relationship between the two so as to attract Clause (c) of Sub-section (iv) to Section 4 of the Act. The notice did not indicate such a basis for the proposed action. The basis was that the entire production of goods sold by the appellant to M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. Even assuming that this constitutes a relationship, the order of the Collector (Appea...
Tag this Judgment!indra Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT745Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the parties appeal against the impugned order No. 59/CEX/93 [F.No. V(74)15-12/Adj.II/93] dated 24-9-1993 challenging only a confiscation of the 240.240 kgs. of Copper Sheets/Circles and 1,916.770 kgs. of Brass Sheets/Circles, provisionally released, and order of appropriation of security of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of the bond, and for any other order or direction deemed fit.1. The facts of the case are that the appellant has removed the excisable goods without a cover of gate pass, without accounting them in the statutory records during the period from 20-4-1992 to 1-2-1993 and without paying the Central Excise Duty. The appellant has suppressed the facts of manufacture and clearance of excisable goods and have resorted fraudulently for the clandestine removal of the same with an intent to evade the payment of Central" Excise duty. On 1-2-1993, the (Preventive) branch of the Central Excise and Customs Officers of the Hdqrs., Pune intercepted a Bajaj Auto Trailer MHQ-4794 in G...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the import made by the appellant in July, 1992 of 32 channel dual deck voice logging system with spares and accessories was permissible under the Open General Licence (OGL). In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector has held that the goods were consumer electronic goods or equipment and therefore could not have been so imported.2. Advocate for the appellant produces before us reply dated 23rd June, 1993 by the Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade to its letter dated 16-3-1993, asking the licensing authority for permission to import the goods without licence and for issue of appropriate instruction to Customs. The appellant has been informed that it may import the goods without a licence subject to conditions prescribed.3. Although this letter of the licensing authority somewhat is ambiguous in that it does not refer to the specific period of the policy under which the import could be made the fact that it is issued i...
Tag this Judgment!Maniar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT84Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the parties appeal praying for setting aside the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad, on the ground that the appellant has applied all the formalities under Rule 57G, and inputs namely chassis and the final product namely activity of body building, are specified under Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986, and the inputs have been used in the manufacture of final product, and none of them exempted from payment of duty, and all the duty paying documents are in original and the credit cannot be denied thereon and GP 1 is not treated for not endorsing in favour of the appellant.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Body Building for Water Tanker for carrying water and three wheelers auto rickshaw, falling under sub-heading 8707.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was holding the licence L-4 and it is also availing the Modvat facilities under Rule 57A. The internal audit party of Central Excise Head Quarters had audited...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT395Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture I.C. engines and components thereof falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They are availing Modvat credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products. M/s. Poona Shrims, an SSI unit, supplied them components of I.C. engines valued at Rs. 9310. In the relevant gate pass dated 27-10-1987 duty of Rs. 60,000/- had been paid on one time design and development charges' charged by the suppliers to the appellants for designing the particular component for the appellants.These charges had been shown separately in the gate pass in addition to the value of the component. M/s. Poona Shrims had paid duty @ 10% ad valorem as an SSI unit under Notification No. 175/86 and the appellants had taken credit @ 20% amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- as per Rule 57B of Central Excise Rules. Show cause notice dated 5-3-1988 was issued for recovery of the amount on the ground that design and development charges are not specified inputs for Modvat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT989Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of glass and glasswares which consists items such as pizza plates, pie dish, mixing bowls made of heat resistant glass which enable them to be used for the purpose of baking in the oven besides being used as tableware. These products are classified under sub-heading 7015.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as other articles of glass including those of a kind used for table, kitchen, office, indoor decoration. There is a Notification No. 67/88 which was claimed by the Respondent, which gave partial exemption to articles falling under Heading 70.15. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, K-I Division, Bombay by his Order-in-Original dated 15-12-1989 held that exemption cannot be granted to the products in question as the exemption was meant, according to the Assistant Commissioner, exclusively to tablewares. But the products in question serve the purpose of baking and serving and therefore cannot be held eligible ...
Tag this Judgment!Stylopack Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC539
1. These applications arise out of a common order. The total duty demand is Rs. 33,39,572.88. There is a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lacs on each of the applicants firm and Rs. 20.00 lacs on applicant Shri Labhubhai B. Patel.2. The Ld. Counsel Shri D.B. Shroff for the applicants submitted that the Commissioner has held that all the three firms were in fact one and the same manufacturer and has demanded the duty. It was contended that the demand is hit by limitation and in this context reference was made to the certificates on their applications for licence submitted in 1987, where the officers have certified on visiting the factory and also they have seen the manufacturing process as to the of the applicants eligiblity for exemption under Notification No. 132/86.Further the ld. Counsel pointed out that annual stock taking has been done in their units without any objection, and further the records have been audited for the relevant period; their classification list have been approved. Further...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Radiators Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT769Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the Department's appeal against the impugned order captioned above praying for quashing the same in respect of defective radiators and to restore the Order-in -Original.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed two Modvat declarations dated 27-1-1992 and 19-2-1992 under Rule 57G for availing of credit of duty and Rule 57A on Thinner/Paints (Chapter sub-heading No. 3208.00) and Radiators (Chapter sub-heading No. 8708.00) as inputs to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product "Radiator" falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 8708.00. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 3-7-1992, disallowed the credit, saying that Paint and Varnish, as such Thinner/Paint do not constitute as inputs, as the manufacture of Radiator is complete without it. Defective radiators are not the necessary inputs, in the manufacture of final product "Radiators". In the appeal by the Respondents Collector (Appeals) has allowed the same by his order d...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. New Manekchowk Textile Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT955Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for reference seeking the opinion of the High Court at Ahmedabad on the following question. "Whether gate passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed after that date would fall under the coverage of Entry No. 10 in the table to the Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 and would consequently become eligible documents for taking Modvat credit under the Modvat scheme?" 2. In this case the respondent was manufacturing cotton yarn/blended yarn/spun yarn. They had filed Modvat declaration under Rule 57G on 23-4-1994 for availing of Modvat credit on inputs namely manmade polyester staple fibre falling in Heading 5501.20. They availed credit in RG 23A Part II for the--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Invoice No. & date RG 23APt. I RG23APt. II Modvat credit takenGP 1 No.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------30 dated 1-6-1994 50/10-6-1994 42/10-6-1994 42,956 6,444...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »