Mumbai Court June 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.
Esprit Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC703Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 18,57,164/- as duty and Rs. 15,00,000/- as penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri M.H. Patil Earned Counsel appearing along with Shri Arun Mehta, Earned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the demand in this case is on the clearance of Miniature Circuit Breakers (MCB) manufactured by the applicant who is a small scale industrial unit availing of exemption under 175/86. The Commissioner in the impugned order has denied the exemption on the MCB for the reason that these goods were bearing the brand name of the German Collaborator of the applicant and therefore the exemption cannot be extended to them in view of the provision of para 4 of the Notification 175/86, which says that where the specified goods are affixed with the brand name of a person who is not eligible for the exemption, the Notification will not apply. The Earned Counsel submitted that their goods did not bear the brand name of thei...
Ranko Refrigeration Company Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC705Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing the Ld. Counsel Shri M.H. Patil for the applicant and Shri S.V. Singh the Ld. JDR, we are inclined to waive the pre-deposit of penalty to Rs. 2.00 lacs imposed on the applicants in the impugned order under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules. We do so following the order by this Bench in stay applications arising out of the same impugned...and Cooling Coils from M/s. Refrigeration Industries. In the earlier stay orders arising out of the same impugned order No.1000-07/98/WRB dt. 21.4.1998, the Bench has ordered the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty by the buyers in identical circumstances.Therefore in the present case also we dispense with the pre-de-posit of penalty and grant stay....
Buildwell Machines (India) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT627Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 2,46,694.80 and of a penalty Rs. 5,000/-.2. The ld. Counsel Shri R.J. Parekh for the applicant submits that in this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has in the impugned order dismissed their appeal without hearing. They were granted a hearing on 5-1-1998. On 3-1-1998, the appellant visited the Commissioner (Appeals) office seeking an adjournment and it was suggested to them on that day that they could be heard on 7-1-1998. On that date when the appellant attended the Commissioner (Appeals) did not hear them, and the impugned order came to be passed. The ld. Counsel pleaded that the applicants have a goods case on merits should have been given an apportunity.3. The ld. JDR Shri S.V. Singh pointed out that the applicant have admittedly been given an opportunity of hearing on the stay application. Since they did not appear on that date the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-depo...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›