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.
Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT619Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, made in Order-in-Original No.38/MP/93, dated 16-12-1993 levying a duty of Rs. 32,559/- and also a levy fine in lieu of confiscation Rs. 30,000/-.2. The case of the department was that the show cause notice was issued on 15-9-1976 alleging that when the officers visited in April, 1976 they found 745 wooden cases containing manufactured glass in the store room which were unaccounted in the RG 1 Register. It was also charged that the RG 1 Register was written only upto 1-4-1976. The factory manager in his statement admitted the violation. After looking into the reply as well as the various case laws submitted by the appellant including the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Universal Generics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India -1993 (68) E.L.T. 27. The Collector levied fine and imposed duty.3. The appellant gave written submissions. His main contention is that show cause notice issued ...
John Wesley Peters Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT976Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order captioned above passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa, by which penalty of Rs. 15,000/- has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Swaraj Mazda pick-up van belonging to the appellant has been confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as having been used in the transport of 75 silver ingots seized from the vehicle on 12-3-1990 valued at Rs. 1,70,61,971 MV.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri S.V. Marwadi submitted that the appellant has been penalised on the ground that he was not available immediately after the seizure of the silver from the vehicle and this fact itself cannot be conclusive for penalising the appellant.The learned Counsel referred to the appellant's defense that the vehicle was given in charge of a person called Prakash to whom the appellant used to entrust the vehicle and at the material time when the seizure was made the app...
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT64Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal involved Modvat credit. Charge against the appellant was gate passes issued were not in the name of the assessee.One of the rudimentary requisites of claiming of the Modvat is that the assessee's name must figure as a consignee or as an endorsee. Here it has been found that the manufacturer has issued the gate passes in the name of Gujarat Dyestuff Industries and it does not bear any endorsement by the consignee. No doubt, in the facts of the case some evidence has been bought stating that the manufacturer has stated that the goods have been diverted to the appellant herein. However, it has to be stated that unless there is evidence in the form of duty paying documents, viz. gate passes which was prevalent at that time, Modvat credit cannot be claimed. Hence, in my view the orders passed by two authorities below are absolutely correct. Hence the appeal is dismissed....
Abdul Rashid Abdul Gani Vs. J.M. Jain, Deputy Director, Enforcement Di ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4313
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Court of Session, greater Bombay in Cri. Revision Application No. 159 of 1989 whereby the order passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bombay in Cri. in Case No. 24/CW of 1984 discharging the petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1974 was set aside and directed the Magistrate to frame charge against the accused.2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was found to be in possession of 2872 US. dollars. 23 sterling pounds, 35 Kuwait Dinars, 20 Doutch Marks, 5 Iraqi Dinars, 200 Singapore dollars, 35 Australian Dollars, 43 Saudi Riyals and 400 Oman Baisa collectively equivalent to Rs. 35,000/- at the relevant time. On getting information, that one Smt. Urmilaben Patel was unauthorisedly in possession of the foreign exchange and her premises was searched by the Enforcement Officer under search warrant, it was disclosed that the aforesaid f...
R. Vs. Pandit V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Mumbai)529
ORDERM. V. R. Prasad, AMThis appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-1-1991 for the assessment year 1987-88. The first ground is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the finding of the assessing officer that the expenditure of Rs. 2,75,400 incurred by the assessee for hire of music rights was covered by section 35A of the Income Tax Act.2. The assessee sells books records, cassettes, magazines, etc. It acquires music rights and sells the cassettes. The assessee had bought the rights of audio sound track of a film Jalwa' from one M/s. PLA Production and the nature of the transaction is described in a letter of the latter concern dated 18-6-1986 addressed to the assessee and it reads as follows :'This is to confirm that we have sold you this day world rights of the audio sound track of our cinematographic film 'Jalwa' starring Naseeruddin Shah, Archana Puransingh, Saeed Jaffrey and others with lyrics by Pandit Narendra Sharma, Sameer, Gul...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the matters were called the learned Senior Counsel Shri Hidayatullah appearing for the respondents along with Shri Willington Christian submitted that the issue raised in this appeal by the department stands covered by two decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Faq Precision Bearing v. Commissioner - 1998 (25) RLT 528 (Tribunal) which has further been followed by the Tribunal in another decision in the case of Rosemount India Ltd. v. Commissioner [1998 (25) RLT 651 (Tribunal)]. The Tribunal has followed the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector v. Re-Rolling Mills - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 8 (S.C).The Supreme Court by that judgment has upheld the Tribunal's decision of Re-Rolling Mills - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has held that even for recovery of erroneous refund as a consequence of review proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, a notice for such recovery under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act within the time limit prescr...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Sundeep Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT282Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order captioned above of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Indore. The appellants are availing of Modvat credit for their final product in respect of input polycarbonate resin received under certificate dated 4-10-1991 and 18-1-1991 into the factory on 21-11-1991 and 1-12-1991.The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner started proceedings on the ground that this credit was wrongly availed, because the declaration for Modvat purpose in respect of this input, according to the Assistant Commissioner, was filed on 13-12-1991. He passed order on 6-8-1992 denying the Modvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and has given a finding that there was in fact initial declaration by a letter dated 24-3-1986 for the very same input by the Respondent and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with the Assistant Commissioner's view that the earlier declaration not being as per pr...
Laxmi Board and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(79)LC769(Bombay)
ORDER1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise dated 30.6.1998. An alternate remedy by way of appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is available against the impugned order. The petitioners can avail of the alternate remedy available under the Act.2. This petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy....
Victor Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT968Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question involved in this case is about the availment of Modvat credit on the inputs when such inputs are used in the manufacture of final product which are cleared from the factory after filing declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules.2. Further, the issue involved in this case is about the transitional credit as provided under Rule 57H on inputs contained in the semi-finished products or finished products lying in the factory on the date of filing the declaration under Rule 57G and the period involved is from 5-5-1989 to 24-5-1991. When Rule 57H stood amended by Notification 25/89-C.E. (N.T.), dated 5-5-1989 the matter is not res Integra. By two judgments, viz. Konark Cement & Asbestos Ltd. v.C.C.E., Bhubaneshwar -1994 (69) E.L.T. 669 and 1994 (73) E.L.T. 694 the matter has been decided in favour of the revenue. However, by a subsequent decision in the case of Suresafe Glass Works (P) Ltd. v.C.C.E. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 328 the learned Single Member of the Calc...
Duphar Interfran Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC290Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As we find that the matter has to be remanded back to the original authority, we grant stay and take up the appeals for disposal. The delay in filing the supplementary appeal, being procedural, the same is condoned.2. The appellants herein availed of exemption under Notification No.64/79, dated 6-3-1978 and Notification No. 20/93, dated 28-2-1993 in respect of their imports of two consignments of chemical materials through Mumbai Customs House which they cleared on 9-9-1993 on furnishing bond in terms of the notification. The notification stipulates that the exemption under the notification can be granted on condition that the importer furnishes an undertaking to the effect that the imported goods shall be used for the purpose specified in the notification against each item viz. for the manufacture of bulk drugs indicated in the notification. The other conditions are that an account of the said imported goods received and consumed in the factory shall be maintained by the manufactu...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »