Mumbai Court May 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.
Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT266Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 4,13,314.89 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The applicant is a company inter alia engaged in the manufacture of paper. The question involved in this appeal is whether they should be treated as capital goods or not within the meaning of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The goods are Gear Coupling, Motorised Potentiometers, pumps, KSB pumps with frames, Fennertype coupling etc. The ld. Counsel cites several judgments that these goods come within the purview of Rule 57Q.2. As against this the ld. D.R. cites the decision of the Tribunal in TELCO v. CCE -1994 (70) E.L.T. 75, CCE v. Trichy Distilleries & Chemicals Ltd. -1997 (23) RLT 846 and Premier Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (30) ETR 156 (Tribunal). She also stressed the point that any order made by the Tribunal in stay applications cannot be the precedent decision as they are not decisions of the Tribunal finally determining the questions. The Stay Order No. 507-8/98, dated 9...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. A.M.A. Extrusion
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT506Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) captioned above by which he has held that the respondents will be eligible for Modvat credit under transitional facility as per Rule 57H by virtue of a letter dated 21-4-1989 submitted by them to the Asstt. Commissioner on their coming to the Modvat credit after availing of exemption under Notification. No. 175/86 and coming to the duty paying area. Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the fact that the respondents have applied for the transitional facility under Rule 57H only on 16-5-1989 whereas earlier to that date the Rule itself has been amended on 5-5-1989 which deleted the provision for taking the transitional Modvat credit on input contained in the finished product lying in stock. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the provisions of Rule 57H as it existed at the material time when the respondents made their application.2. The respondents have also fi...
Meghdev Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are appeals against the two different orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, whereunder, he denied credit of transfer of amount paid under proforma credit to be transferred to PLA in terms of Rule 57H(3).2. The appellants manufacture paper based laminated sheets. They were purchasing kraft paper from M/s. Ballarpur Industries and M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. They purchased kraft paper from M/s. Ballarpur Industries for the period from September, 81 to June, 82 and from Sirpur Paper Mills for the period from 1-7-1975 to 30-6-1986. The above period has been mentioned to highlight the dispute between the department and the appellants in respect of the transfer of proforma credit to Modvat credit. The purchases made by the appellants from the above suppliers the duty was varied due to addition of post manufacturing expenses. When the post manufacturing expenses were added, they paid extra amount to the supplier and they claimed proforma credit under Rule 56A(2). Thi...
Simples Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC414Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these two Appeals-one filed by M/s. Simplex Mills Ltd. and the other one filed by CCE, Bombay-the issue involved is Same and therefore both appeals are disposed of by this order.2. The issue involved in both these appeals is whether duty is chargeable on the un-sized yarn or sized yarn.3. The Ld. Counsel for the Simplex Mills submitted that the issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India . In their own case earlier the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 789/82 decided on 20th June, 1980, decided the matter in their favour following the earlier decision in the case of Union of India v.Morarji Goculdas Spg. Wvg. Co. Ltd. . He further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of Dawns Mills Co. also in addition to the appellants/assessee and Hind Textile Mills; that the Appellate Tribunal vide order No. 20/98-D in Appeal No. E/1064/90-D has already allowed t...
Gujarat Machinery Mfrs. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT180Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is party's appeal against the impugned Order No.35/92(21-AJD)CE./Collr(A)/AHD, dated 23-1-1992, pertaining to recalling of refund granted to the respondents praying for setting aside the same and restoring the Order-in-Original No. Demand/81/89, dated 25-10-1989 of Assistant Collector, Anand, by ordering refund of Rs. 13,540.50.2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant is the manufacturer of glass frit since 1970. There was a classification dispute under the 1st Schedule of Central Excise Act, with the party claiming under residuary entry 68 and department under Item No. 23A(4) of the Tariff as other glass. Tribunal upheld the Departmental claim, which is challenged before the Supreme Court and it is pending, in which stay order dated 30-4-1982 stayed the recovery of 6 months prior to it. The Appellant continued to pay duty under protest vide their letter No. K/CEX/AHD/HD, dated 10-6-19.82. After the introduction of 1985 Tariff Act from 28-2-1986 department suggested to ...
Commr. of Cus. Vs. Mac Donald Mohan Distillers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC92
1. The Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva has filed this appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai captioned above. The facts are that the respondents imported a consignment of Guola Caps and cleared it on payment of duty on 5-9-1995. Subsequently, they filed an application for refund on 7-3-1996 on the ground that due to mistake by the supplier, the invoice for the goods had been made out for air freight instead of sea freight.The goods had actually been shipped by sea. the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, by his order dated 11-3-1996 rejected the claim as time barred beyond six months period prescribed for refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Asstt. Commissioner's order was challenged in appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order setting aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order on the ground that the refund claim has to be dealt with in terms of Section 154 of the Customs Act and not under Section 27 ...
Dhariwal Tobacco Products Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT500Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications arise out of the separate orders of adjudication passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara captioned above.2. The ld. Counsel Shri Willingdon appeared for the applicants along with ld. Counsel Shri Mayur Shroff; he submitted that the particulars of the duty demand. The period involved along with the respective date of show cause notices and the amount of duty and penalty in this appeal are as follows:------------------------------------------------------------------------S. APPEAL NO. PERIOD SCN DUTY RS. PENA-NO. & STAY NO. DATED LTY RS. LACS1. E/753-R/98 April 95 15-7-1996 Rs. 74,69,228/ Rs. 50.00 -----------------2. E/574-R/98 April 96 2-9-1996 Rs. 25,30,990/ Rs. 25.00 -----------------3. E/575-R/98 July 96 27-11-1996 Rs. 24,33,31/- Rs. 5.00 -----------------4. E/576-R/98 Oct. 96 5-5-1997 Rs. 26,16,570/- Rs. 20.00 ----------------- E/Stay-476-R/98 to March 97 lacs--------------------------------------------------------------------...
Stp Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification, for purposes of the import policy, of two products imported and described as "Torchseal 4 mm black and Glasseal 2.5 mm black". The importer claimed that import of these goods did not require a licence on the basis that Torchseal was classifiable as non-woven under Heading 5803.99 and Glasseal as an article of glass fibre under Heading 7019.39, for the purpose of the Export-Import policy for 1992-97. The Custom House was of the view that the goods would fall under Heading 68.07 as article of bitumen.2. Adjudicating upon the consequent issue of notice, Commissioner has confirmed this classification and ordered confiscation of the goods with option to redeem them on payment of fine and imposed a penalty on the importer. Hence this appeal. Torchseal is essentially non woven polyester fabric coated with resin modified bitumen on both sides. Glasseal also is a combination of polypropylene thermoplastic polymers modified...
Afco Industrial and Chemicals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the issue relates to valuation of the tailor-made electrical machinery and equipments manufactured by the Appellant falling under Chapter 85.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act and is covered by precedent decisions, and therefore we grant stay and with the consent of the parties take up the appeal for disposal.2. The issue involved is that the Appellant received advance payments from their customers during 13.5.1986 to 13.3.1991 against orders placed with them and utilised some advances as working capital.Therefore the notional interest thereon was added to the assessable value. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise's order determining the assessable value as above came to be confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order leading to the present appeal.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has dismissed the appeal for non compliance with Section 35F of Central Excises Act since the Appellant did not deposit the duty as confirme...
Jaysynth Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT748Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant imported goods described in the invoice as polynest grading and marking system. According to the invoice, this consisted of a computer and peripherals. Appellant claimed clearance of the goods under Heading 8479.89 and the benefit of Entry 58 and 64 of the Table to Notification 16/85. The entries are pattern grading machine and pattern making machine respectively. The goods were originally claimed under Open General Licence (OGL).2. The Department was of the view that the goods, being a computer system would not be entitled to the benefit of notification and also proposed to deny clearance under OGL on the ground that the computers were listed in Appendix 2B Item 175 as a restricted item. Notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods and denial of notification benefit. Appellant in its reply asserted the eligibility to the notification and to clearance under OGL. In the alternative, it requested clearance of the goods in terms of sub-para (2) of para 177 of the 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »