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.
Group Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT359Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 10.20 lakhs.Duty has been demanded on the ground that the two products manufactured by the applicant, Clohex and Stolin are not patent or proprietary medicines classifiable under Heading 30.03 of the tariff but preparations for oral or dental hygiene falling under Heading 33.06.Advocate for the applicant says that the Clohex contains 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate. He refers to the Extra Pharmacopoeia of Martindale to show that the preparations containing active ingredients to this extent can be used as for the treatment of gingivitis and prevention of plague. He also refers to the order of the Commissioner dated 27-5-1997 holding that a formulation containing 0.2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate would be classifiable under Heading 30.03. He says that the other product contains povidone iodine 1% and refers to the Extra Pharmacopoeia to say such goods are also used as an antiseptic and disinfectant. He cites the order dated 20th December,...
Rama Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals are taken up for disposal after waiving deposit of duty demanded and penalties imposed.2. In the common orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 3.64 crores approximately, on two grounds. The first, which covers the total duty except for Rs. 3.11 lakhs is on the ground that the paper manufactured by the appellant and cleared as newsprint did not conform to the standards for newsprint prescribed in the Indian Standard Specification No. IS-11688-1986. The remaining duty had been demanded on the quantity of 41499 kgs. alleged to have been cleared without payment of duty. This is the difference in the weight between what was cleared and what was shown in the RG 1 register.3. The Advocate for the appellant contends that there is no requirement in the tariff that newsprint should conform to the Indian Standard Specifications. Note (3) to Chapter 48 of the tariff defines newsprint as paper intended for the printing of newspapers. ...
Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT386Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are all 14 applications for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 3,95,36,481/- indicated in the 14 show-cause notices. The appellant before us are manufacturer of steel structures falling under Chapter 7308.90. It was observed that the appellant received orders for job work of drilling and galvanising of rolled steel joist (RSJ) and rod flanged beams (BFB) as per specifications and designs supplied by Central Organisation Railway Electrification. The process of trimming of RSJ and BFB appear to constitute manufacturing within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central. Excise Act, 1944. Show-cause notices were issued mentioning as the final product 'MAST' appear to an end result of one or more process carried out by the assessees resulting in a new product. It would appear that the assessee had cleared the goods without filing any classification list. Hence the show-cause notices were given calling upon them to pay duty, etc. Replies were filed. In the reply there were 11 cases ...
Shreyas Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC757Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported in May, 1997 a consignment of used diesel engines of various makes such as Nissan, Isuzu, Daihatsu. The Custom House objected to the importation on the ground that second-hand goods required an import license which had not been produced. The Commissioner, after hearing the importer (who waived the issue of a written show cause notice) has passed the impugned order confiscating the goods under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act, and allowed redemption on fine of Rs. 28 lakhs. The declared value of the consignment which was accepted by the Custom House is Rs. 14.72 lakhs.The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112 of the Act.2. Appellant's Advocate does not press the ground B of the appeal which questions the liability to confiscation of the goods, restricts the appeal to the quantum of redemption fine and liability to penalty. He relies on this Tribunal's unreported Order in Appeal No. C/667/97, Archana Internati...
Sahyadri Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT314Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 31-12-1993 praying for setting aside the said order and such other relief as the facts and the circumstances of the case deems fit.1. The facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures excisable goods falling under Chapters 73 & 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. The appellant has claimed exemption under Notification 75/87, dated 1-3-1987 under which he has no option to avail Mod vat upto the exemption of Rs. 5 lakhs to pay concessional rate of duty at 24% ad valorem. Show cause notices dated 6-11-1992, 5-5-1993 and 26-5-1993 for the period from 19-5-1992 to 26-2-1993, were served upon him to show cause why Rs. 1,28,895.02, Rs. 35,015.45 and Rs. 34,589.20 amounts should not be recovered form him for having incorrectly availed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,98,499.67. In the personal hearing dated 6-7-1993, the appellant appeared thrugh Shri J.P. Laboto and submitted the written submissions...
Alco Winding Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC206Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order captioned above passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad.2. The appellants manufactured super enamelled aluminium and copper wire falling under Chapter Heading 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 31-10-1991, the departmental officers visited their factory, and noticed that they have fabricated/manufactured enamelling plant totally valued at Rs. 24,09,631/- attracting Central Excise duty under Tariff Heading 84.79. It was alleged that the machinery have manufactured at the factory site only. Statement was given by Shri Jagdish Agarwal, director of the appellants on 31-10-1991, wherein he stated that machinery namely enamelling and winding wire machine installed in the unit are manufactured at site and that the cost of the said machinery includes supervision charges, labour charges, material cost and for the manufacture of these machinery they have engaged designers for designing the machines, employed the labo...
Dynacast Industries Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT524Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of a consignment of tin ash/dross imported by it. The bill of entry and the invoice for the goods stated them to be tin ash/dross and did not bear any indication of the metal content. Examination of the goods by the Custom House showed tin content to be 94.5%. After hearing the importer (who waived issue of written show cause notice) the Collector passed the order impugned in the appeal, enhancing the value of the goods on the basis of prices of tin prevailing in the London Metal Exchange (LME) less the difference in the purity of the metal and costs in refining, confiscating the goods under Clause (m) of Section 111 and imposing penalty. Hence this appeal.2. We are not able to accept the contention of the Advocate for the appellant that the value determined by the Collector is incorrect. The Collector had determined the value by applying the LME prices prevailing on the date of contract entered into and grading on allowance between the...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mira Silk Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT934Tri(Mum.)bai
1. A notice was issued to M/s. Mira Silk Mills, the respondent in this appeal, demanding duty, proposing confiscation of fabrics processed by it and cleared on the ground that duty had not been paid. Notice also proposed to levy duty and take penal action with regard to post clearances, the details of which were entered in a note book, which it is claimed, was seized from the premises of the assessee. This note book is referred to as "Vandana". Adjudicating on the notice, the Additional Collector confirmed the duty and liability to confiscation and penalty with regard to goods found in the vehicle. He however dropped the proceedings relating to post clearances on the ground of insufficient evidence. Hence this appeal by the department.2. The departmental representative contends that the "Vandana" note book shows entries relating to clearances, many of which tally in terms of date, number of packages and length of fabric cleared with the RG1 register of the assessee. Therefore he says ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›