Mumbai Court May 1998 Judgments
Foods and Inn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT232Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein took Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of their final product which became exempt from duty by Notification Nos. 85 & 86, dated 11-9-1991. The jurisdictional Asstt.Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty on inputs used in the manufacture of the finished goods lying uncleared as on 11-9-1991. The said order having been confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai the present appeal has been filed.2. Shri R.G. Sheth, the ld. Counsel for the appellants relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 835 (Tribunal) wherein the Larger Bench held that where there was an existing exemption notification for the final product at the time of receipt of input, then the bar on Modvat credit under Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules will apply. The Larger Bench, however, did not express any final opinion in respect of the situation where the notification exemption t...
Tag this Judgment!Chowgule Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT280Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the impugned Order No. 7/91-Goa (S/49-19/91-TS), dated 5-6-1991 of the Collector of Customs praying for setting aside the same, and also recovery proceedings under Section 148 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the appellant and for any other relief deemed fit.2. The facts of the case are that on 29-5-1988 two foreign fishing trawlers Shang Fuh Nos. 11 and 12 arrived at the Marmugoa port from high seas with a catch of marine products for a final call for declaring the cargo for export and departure to a foreign port. They were chartered by M/s. Ocean Products & Shipping Ltd., Visakhapatnam.They appointed the appellant M/s. Choughule Brothers, Mormugoa as their local agents. On arrival of Trawlers agents filed the import manifest on behalf of the principal. In the general manifest of the Trawlers No.11, 4615 boxes of assessed fish catch were declared as source bottom cargo, and in the general manifest of Trawler No. 12, 4601 boxes of assessed fi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Naseema Shaikh Vs. Shri JainuddIn M. Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR580; 1998(4)BomCR225
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent.2. This is a revision application against the Order dated 14th May, 1998 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 55/96/B by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco-da-Gama. By the impugned order, the trial Court had directed that during the first half of the summer vacation with effect from 15th May, 1998 to 25th May, 1998 the interim custody of the minor child of the parties by name Saniya, be given to the respondent herein.3. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 10th May 1985 and out ot the said wedlock the said child by name Saniya was born on 14th December 1987. The petitioner and the respondent lived together till November 1993 and since December 1993 the petitioner herein started residing at her parental house alongwith her daughter Saniya. Sometime in July 1996 the respondent herein filed Special Civil Suit No. 55/96/B in the trial Court prayi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkamal Kalamandir P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC764Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture coated magnetic tapes falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 of CET. The issue in this appeal relates to their claim for exemption under Not. No. 77/83 for their final product.The condition of the exemption under this notification is that the value of clearance should be below Rs. 30 lakhs and also that the value of investment in plant and machinery should not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs.The Addl. Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Mumbai-I in the present impugned order has denied them the exemption as unsubstantiated.2. Shri S.N. Parikh, the ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that the same issue for the different period has been decided by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in their case vide final order No. 106 and 107/98-C dated 22.1.1998, wherein the Tribunal had set aside the impugned order denying the exemption and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication for determining the eligibility of the appellants to exemption under Not. No. 77/83. Since the present m...
Tag this Judgment!Newpar Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC353
1. Appellants manufacture bon acid falling under Chapter 29 Central Excise Tariff Act. They are availing of modvat credit on their input beta naphthol used in the manufacture of bon acid. The input supplier was availing exemption of duty for beta naphthol as per Notification 432/86 exempting dye intermediates (beta naphthol in this case) from so much of the duty thereon as is equivalent to the duty already paid on naphthalene. The supplier of beta naphthol issued gate passes for the clearances of the material indicating that duty liability has been discharged partly by "setting off' duty already paid on naphthalene as per the Notification, and partly by debiting in their Personal Ledger Account (PLA). The appellants took credit of the total amount as shown in the gate passes.2. Show-cause notices were issued by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that beta naphthol was exempt to the extent of duty paid on naphthalene, which exemption having been a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT176Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee manufactured and cleared goods recovered octanol without payment of duty and without filing the proper documents on a view that this commodity was nothing but waste product. Following issue of notice, Addl. Collector held that the product to be classifiable and assessable to duty under Heading No. 29. He however, duly held that duty paid on any quantity of '2 Ethyl Hexanol' used in or in relation to the manufacture of the recovered octanol would be available as credit. This appeal questions the legality and propriety of this finding.2. The ground of appeal is that credit could not have been permitted in the absence of declaration under Rule 57G classifying the product as input. This ground was reiterated by the departmental representative.Respondent is absent.3. When the assessee cleared the final product without payment of duty the question of its filing declaration of taking Modvat credit did not arise. Subsequently, however, department involves that the final produc...
Tag this Judgment!S.T.S. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT870Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Appellant has its registered office at Mumbai and two factories at Pune and Tarapur. It imported a consignment of yellow phosphorous, the bill of entry filed for clearance of which have its address of the registered office. Subsequently, the consignment along with bill of entry went to Tarapur where credit was taken on that part. The remaining portion of the consignment and the bill of entry went to Pune where credit was taken on the remaining part. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has disallowed the credit taken at the second stage at Pune on two grounds.3. The first ground is that the bill of entry bearing the address of the registered office at Mumbai was not a valid document for taking credit. The ratio of this Tribunal's decision in Larsen & Toubro Limited v. C.C.E. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 squarely applies to the facts of this case. There is no objection to credit being taken in the factory against the bill of entry bearing address of the company owning ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Monopol Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT866Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II had filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) captioned above. In this case the respondents are availing of Modvat credit and pursuant to a show cause notice issued to them regarding irregular availment of the credit, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division XI, Mumbai -II Commissionerate passed an adjudication order dated 5-8-1991. The Assistant Commissioner held that the charges in the show cause notice, that the respondents did not file specific and proper declaration of input giving chapter heading numbers and full description of certain inputs are not sustainable. The Assistant Commissioner observed that for items, for which in the declaration under Rule 57G for Modvat purposes proper chapter sub-heading numbers and full description are not mentioned, in such cases merely on that ground Modvat credit cannot be denied.2. The Department filed a review applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT224Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Respondents are engaged in manufacture of iron and steel products under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed a declaration on 18-3-1986 for availing of Modvat credit on their own input waste and scrap- of steel falling under Heading 7203.20 CETA.They also filed an application on 31-3-1986 for availing of transitional facility under Rule 57H of the credit of duty on inputs lying in stock read with deemed credit order of the Ministry of Finance.2. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notice on 25-7-1989 to the Respondents as to why deemed credit on waste and scrap should not be denied as these were purchased from outside open market and were clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid and why the credit of duty on such waste and scrap availed should not be recovered under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner passed the adjudication order dated 19-8-1989 confirming the demand. An appeal was filed against this order...
Tag this Judgment!Demosha Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT443Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal whereunder an amount of Rs. 21,760/- has been demanded as not complying the provisions of Modvat rules in strict way.2. The appeal has been taken up for disposal with the consent of both parties after waiving pre-deposit.3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sodium hydrosulphite and other chemicals falling under sub-heading 2831 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were availing the Modvat credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs. A show cause notice was issued on the appellants where it was stated that the appellants had received inputs namely metal containers of various sizes and took Modvat credit thereof. They had taken the Modvat credit through RG 23A Part II but failed to account for the respective quantity of inputs metal containers received by them for which duty has already been availed.Hence it was charged by the department that Modvat credit were wrongly availed of. After proper inquiry the Assistant Collector dropped th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »