Mumbai Court August 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.
Trumac Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1026Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Assistant Collector confirmed by_ the Collector (Appeals) that the appellant not having declared specifically the inputs, was not entitled to take credit of the duty paid on that.2. Appellant is absent. I have read the appeal papers and heard the Departmental Representative.3. It is not in dispute that what the appellant declared in May, 1986 was " machinery parts" whereas credit was taken on complete spike roll and spike latthice". It is also not in dispute that the goods in question were inputs for the final products manufactured by the appellant.4. In the normal course it might have to be held that in the absence of a more specific declaration, credit was not available. However the declaration was made on 26th March, 1986 within the same month as the Modvat procedure came into force. There was considerable confusion and doubt both within the trade and the department, as to the exact nature for the declaration to be filed, and the informatio...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Asian Paints (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the paint which was used by the assessee to paint drums in which it packed the paint manufactured by it would be an input. He said that it was necessary for the assessee to paint the drums used for packing the paint, for it to be marketable, and therefore an input.This is challenged in this appeal by the department on the ground that paint used for painting the drums is not used in the manufacture of final products of the assessee.2. The appeal does not, touch upon the reasoning in the order of Collector (Appeals) that the goods in dispute were used to render the final product marketable which is an essential feature of manufacture.It is also to be noted that credit is available on inputs which is used in, in relation to the manufacture of the final product. There is no claim that the paint could be sold, or sold in unpainted drums. The paint therefore has rightly been held to be an input....
Cce Vs. Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC67Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The department being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 8.10.1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay has filed this appeal.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of travel goods such as suitcases and briefcases, was filing price lists from time to time and clearing goods on payment of appropriate duty on approved prices. The dispute relates to the period April, 1986 to May, 1988. It was found that along with suitcases of 24" and above sizes, respondent was supplying bought out wheeler kits and special chains to wholesale dealers who purchased suitcases but did not include the value of the bought out items in the assessable value of suitcases and thereby evaded duty. Show cause notice dated 23.8.1988 was issued referring to the above facts and alleging mis-declaration of value with intent to evade duty and proposing to determine the assessable value of suitcases cleared during the period after including the value of bought out items and proposing demand of di...
Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT53Tri(Mum.)bai
This is the party's appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.GS/356/B.I/93 F. No.V -2(48)566/5.1/91/4995, dated 4-8-1993 of the Respondent, praying for quashing and setting aside the same, and allow the appeal with consequential relief, holding that the Modvat credit availed is in order.1. The facts of the case are that the Appellant manufactures soaps, detergents, chemicals, large number of products at various factories located all over the country. One such factory is situated at Haji Bunder, Sewri, Bombay-15. To manufacture soaps, polycoated stiffeners is one such input. It is a packing material used for packing the final product soap. It is received from the manufacturers of poly coated paper either in the form of jumbo roll or roll, which are slit to the required width. When jumbo rolls are received, they are required to be slit to the specified width in order that they can be mounted on packaging machines. The Appellant used to receive through job workers duly slit to the specified...
Cc Vs. Fabrico and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC602Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. The respondents in this appeal imported Industrial Sewing Machine with stand, table and motor, all described in the invoice as Industrial Sewing Machine with one single value. The authorities below classified and assessed the machine separately and stand, table and motor separately on merits. The respondents filed the refund claim. Their refund claims were rejected holding that assessments were made correctly.1.1 In appeal before the lower appellate authorities, the respondents succeeded. The said appellate authority has held as follows:-- The goods are electrical industrial sewing machines. The clutch motor is a part and parcel of the machine without which the machine cannot function. Further, the table and stand are needed to mount the machine on it. The construction of the machine is such that without stand, it will not work. Table enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of the machine. Hence all the three items are essentia...
Baburao L. Patil and Others Vs. Dashrath R. Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR948
ORDERA.V. SAVANT, J.1. By consent, both the petitions are taken up for hearing together. Heard all the learned Counsel at length; Shri Thorat for the petitioners; Shri Singhvi for the Sugar Factory and Shri Kerkar A.G.P. for the Divisional Joint Registrar, and the Minister for Co-operation.2. These two petitions have been filed by the members of the Gadhinglaj Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, at Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur (for short, 'Sugar Factory'), which is a Co-operative Sugar Factory and a Society specified as per the provisions of section 73-G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). The Sugar Factory is respondent No. 974 in Writ Petition No. 4200 of 1998 and it is respondent No. 84 in Writ Petition No, 4201 of 1998. Under the impugned order, expulsion of as many as 1991 members shareholders of the said Sugar Factory which has a total of about 9000 members, has been upheld by the Minister for Co-operation, Government of Maharashtra. It is common gr...
Anand Rajaram Kane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4360
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings initiated against him by the C.B.I. before the learned Special Judge at Sangli in pursuance of the First Information Report produced at Exh. A in this petition. The said F.I.R. discloses that the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The main contention alleged by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pradhan in this writ petition is that, the Magistrate was wrongly rejected the petitioner's contention that, not being a public servant, he should not have been implicated under the provisions of Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge, Sangli therefore cannot proceed with the matter. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. This writ...
Kopran Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT962Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Notice was issued to the appellant alleging wrong taking of Modvat credit on 21 invoices. The reasons specified were that the supplier is a wholesale supplier and invoices were not in conformity with Notification 16/94, dated 30-3-1994 and Trade Notice No. 30/94. The Additional Commissioner allowed credit taken on three of the invoices.He disallowed credit on the remaining six on the ground that the invoices related to imported goods which had not been sent in original packing. On appeal from this order Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this order. Hence this appeal.3. The invoices in all cases were issued prior to 4-7-1994, it is the date from which by incorporation of Rule 57GG in the statute book, registration of a dealer was made mandatory. Denial on this ground cannot be upheld.4. The departmental representative's contention that the invoices were not complete in other respects, that the notification and the trade notices is not one which is found in the notice, or either of th...
Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC610
1. The brief facts are that the proceedings were initiated against the respondents alleging that they have cleared polycondensation waste upto spinnerate stage i.e. undrawn waste in lump form during the period November, 1985 to April, 1986 without payment of duty as the said lump waste is classifiable under T. I. 15A OF THE OLD Central Excise Tariff Act. It was further alleged that they have manipulated the account of polyester waste and they have not shown the lump waste and POY waste arising from the spinnerate stage onwards separately and they have cleared the lump waste for recovering dimethyl terephthalate as per notification No. 168/76-CE under Chapter X procedure. Since this exemption has been given for the waste of polyester fibre and yarn and as the entire quantity of waste is not covered as per the description of the said notification, the lump waste was held to be dutiable and proceedings were taken for recovery thereof. Show cause notice was issued on 21.5.1986 for recover...
Cce Vs. Chem Equip Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC638Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a departmental appeal against Order-in-Original No. 26/90 dated 31.7.1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay withdrawing the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector to the respondent. We have heard both sides.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of S.O. Dyes and Organic Surface Active Agent, was filing price lists from time to time claiming deduction of 12.75% trade discount and certain post manufacturing expenses. Price lists were being provisionally approved allowing deduction of trade discount but disallowing deduction of other expenses. Respondent was paying duty on that basis, though under protest. While so, it was found that trade discount was not being uniformly given to all buyers. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 28.6.1989 was issued referring to the above facts and proposing demand of differential duty on the element of trade discount in respect of clearances during the period 1.6.1984 to 30.5.1989. Respondent contested the noti...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »