Mumbai Court January 1999 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.
Rasoul Saraji Onsoroudi Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC334Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the impugned order the Commissioner has imposed penalties of Rs. 1.5 lakhs under Section 112A and under Section 114(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant Mr. Rasoul Saraji Onsoroudi, an Iranian national. The present application seeks waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of these penalties for hearing of the main appeal as also stay of recovery of the same.2. Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate appearing along with Shri S.G.Abaskazi, Advocate stated that the applicant was an Iranian businessman of repute. He and his wife had come together to India for business purpose. His wife who was accompanying him had brought currency amounting to US $1,00,000/- into Iran on 10-6-1997 and had taken out currency of US $ 55,000/-on departure on 21-4-1988 from Iran. In support of the statement he referred to the certificate given by the Iranian Embassy in Mumbai based on the information obtained by them from Iran Customs. Shri Patel submitted that this was the currency imported by the...
York Exports Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC270Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants in this case, exported 18 consignments of Mohair Polyester Blended Knitwear, giving the composition of 70% Mohair and 30% Polyester against Advance Licence earlier obtained. The test reports showed that in two consignments covered under two shipping bills dated 2.9.1994 and 5.9.1994, there was vast variation in the composition. The acrylic fibre was used in the place of polyester. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that these goods were liable for confiscation. He ordered the confiscation and permitted the redemption on payment of Rs. 5.5 lakhs in addition to imposing a penalty of Rs. 75,000/-. The confiscation was adjudged in terms of 113(d) of Customs Act, 1962. Penalty was imposed under the provisions of 114(1) of the Act. Shri Mathew, learned advocate submits that under these provisions only those goods can be confiscated which are exported contrary to any prohibition imposed under the Customs Act or any other act. He refers to the show cause notice in w...
R.K. Synthetics and Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT589Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of the demand amounting to Rs. 15,68,644/- as also for the stay of recovery thereof.2. The applicants imported Acrylic/Synthetic Softwaste/ Tow Waste, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 27/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 as regards additional duty of Customs. Subsequent to the clearance of the goods, the authorities realised that the benefit under this Notification had been taken away by subsequent Notification No.95/95-C.E., dated 26-5-1995. The Less Charge Memo was thereafter issued. The importers in reply claimed the benefit of alternate Notification No. 85/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995. The Assistant Commissioner relying upon certain case law held that the benefit whereof was not available in view of the wording in the proviso in the said Notification. He held that the Notification would protect indigenously produced waste and would not cover the imported waste.Against this order the importers filed an appeal. The Commiss...
themis Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT843Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the impugned Order No.14/Demand/94, dated 12-10-1994 of the Respondent praying for setting aside the same and for such other relief deems fit, and for stay of the appeal.1. The facts of the case are, that the Appellants were holding a valid Licence No. E-0/1/83, dated 18-5-1983 under 100% export oriented scheme, renewed from time to time, were importing the raw material D-Alpha Phenyl Glycine, Aceto Acetic Ethyl Ester and Isopropyl Alcohol and used as input to their finished product Dane's Salt of D-Alpha Phenyl Glycine for 100% export under OGL, availing the exemption benefit of non-payment of duty of Customs under Notification No.13/81-Cus., dated 9-12-1981 as amended from time to time.2. The Appellants imported 6000 kgs of D-Alpha Phenyl Glycine under Bill of Entry No. 12733/30-11-1988 Bombay Port and warehoused there on 12-12-1988. It was transported in entirety under bond as per Section 67 of Customs Act, 1962 vide Bill of Entry 5/88-89, date...
Dci Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When these two stay applications came up for hearing, it appeared that at this stage, the main appeals could be disposed of. Both the sides being in agreement, this was done after granting unconditional stay and waiver of the sums confirmed.2. The appellants manufacture pharmaceutical products. On 6 -products, they affixed the brand name of M/s. Indoco, who are the distributors of pharmaceutical products, with their own name and cleared the products on payment of duty. On 24 other products manufactured by them, they availed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. On 18 products, where the brand names were owned by them, the fact that the pharmaceuticals were manufactured by them, was prominently shown in the labels. The medicaments were marketed by M/s. Indoco. However, no brand name of M/s. Indoco was affixed on such labels. In the case of other six products, on the labels, the name and logo of the present appellants as well as of the distributors were displayed. Two show caus...
Goa Industrial Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC520Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three applications for waiver of deposit of duty approximately of Rs. 64.62 lakhs and 7.47 lakhs from Goa Sintered Products Pvt. Ltd. (GIS for short) and Goa Industrial Products (GIP for short) respectively. In the impugned order the Commissioner has also ordered reversal of Modvat credit of Rs. 1.55 lakhs, Rs. 3.88 lakhs and Rs. 13.63 lakhs from GSP, GIP, and Metalloys respectively and imposed penalties totalling of Rs. 1.05 lakhs, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively on each of them.2. The duty has been demanded on a number of grounds. Rs. 14.24 lakhs approximately has been demanded from GSP on the ground that sintered bushes which were purportedly manufactured and cleared on payment of duty by GIP were in fact actually manufactured by GSP who should pay the duty. Similarly duty of Rs. 7.10 lakhs has been demanded from GIP on the ground that it was a manufacturer of tin products purportedly manufactured by Metalloys. With regard to these allegations, the issue as to w...
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC201Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification either under heading 85.26 or heading 90.26 of the customs tariff of the radar level gauges imported by the appellant. These gauges employ microwaves to measure the level of liquids in tanks. Very briefly the principle employed is that electromagnetic waves are sent from the unit which is mounted on to the vessel or the storage tank, which are reflected by the surface of the stored liquid. The time taken for the waves to travel from the gauge to the liquid surface and back which is measured, is the basis for the measurement of liquid volume. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held this item to be classified under heading 85.26 both for the purpose of levy of duty and for the purpose of importability, since the import of policy on the relevant date was aligned with the Customs Tariff.2. Heading 85.26 reads: "Radar apparatus, radio navigational aid apparatus, radio remote control apparatus". Th...
Amal Rasayan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT531Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector in appeal before him, holding that the appellant was required to deposit under Section 11D of the Act, that part of the duty paid on dye-intermediate manufactured by it which was not required to be bond being exempt by Notification No.432/86 was collected of the buyer.2. We have not considered the arguments on merit, including the question whether the amount of duty paid on the Naphthalene set off towards duty on the final product is duty or not. Advocate for the appellants points out that the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Eternit Everest Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.) held as follows on a matter before it involving application of Section 11D. "For all the reasons stated above, we declare Section 11D of the Act is valid piece of legislation; but we allow the writ petitions on the only ground of lack of authority in the respondents 2 to 4, parti...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC813Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd., the assessee who is the respondent in this appeal was engaged in the manufacture of food products. Malt extract was one of the ingredients utilised in the manufacture. Notification 201/79 exempted the products manufactured by the assessee from so much of duty as had been paid on any of the inputs utilised by the manufacturer subject to the condition that the procedure in the Appendix to the notification was followed. The assessee took the benefit of the notification in respect of the malt extract manufactured and cleared to it on payment of duty by two manufacturers, M/s. Barmalt India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Malt Company.2. The question as to whether malt extract was entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty provided in Notification 55/75 had been in dispute. By its judgement the Delhi High Court held that malt extract was entitled to the benefit of the notification. Notification 201/79 appendix contained a provision that if the duty paid ...
Ashok India Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT686Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications are by 5 assessees against the demand of duty and by their partners against imposition of penalty under Rule 209A as detailed in the Annexure of this Order. The products provisionally manufactured by each of the assessees comprise electrical switch gear, motor starters, electrical panel boards, PVC pipe fittings and electrical fuses and distribution panel. Each of them affixes the brand name of "Ashok India" on the product manufactured and cleared. Notices have been issued denying the benefit of Notification 1/93 on the ground that the brand name belongs to another person Chimandas Ashok Engineering Works (Chimandas for short). The extended period has been invoked on the ground that the assessee suppressed from the Department the fact and it did not declare to the Department the fact that the brand name was registered in the name of Chimandas.2. Mr. Rohan Shah Advocate for the appellant makes the following submissions. Products manufactured by each of the applica...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »