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.
D.B. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT479Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the confiscation of 7.818 kg. of silver belonging to him by the adjudication order dated 18-7-1998 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pune for violation of provision of Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act. His order of the Deputy Commissioner has been upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), Mumbai. Shri Vinayak Gaikwad, General Counsel of the appellant, submitted that the seizure of the silver has been made on the ground that it was being possessed by the appellant in specified area for the purpose of Chapter IV-B without valid documents. But the place of seizure is Kolhapur, which is beyond 100 Km from the coast.The specified area is defined as 100 Km from the coast. In such a situation the seizure is sustainable as held by the Tribunal report in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 257. The lower authorities in their order have not given due consideration to this contention. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri S.V. Singh, pointed...
Ardil Surgical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT816Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether ceramic moulds also describes as porcelain formers imported by the appellant would qualify for concessional assessment in terms of Notification No.18/89-Cus. for basic duty and Notification No. 142/90-Cus. for additional duty.2. Appellant absent, despite notice. We have heard the Departmental Representative and perused the papers.3. The subject Notification No. 18/89 describes the goods exempted by item "rubber surgical glove making plant in the shape of rectangular/oval frame, consisting of endless chain, porcelain forms, dipping devices with tanks, drying, beading and forms cleaning devices, panel control, ball mill, roater and testing devices." It is the contention of the appellant that since porcelain formers imported by it specifically figures in the notification, it is entitled to the notification. The Notification exempts rubber surgical glove making plant in the form described in the schedule. It is clear from the sch...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›