Mumbai Court November 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.
Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT170Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application was argued by Shri R.V. Desai, senior Counsel appearing with Shri A.D. Kango. Revenue was represented by Shri A.Ashokan, JDR.2. The applicants are registered co-operative womens society recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission. They were manufacturing soaps. In their classification list filed in July, 1991, they claimed benefit of Notification No. 88/88-C.E. as amended by Notification No.89/91-C.E. This notification exempts laundry and carbolic soaps manufactured in rural areas by registered co-operative societies or by women societies or by institutions recognised by the KVIC or state units of KVIC. The notification defined the phrase "rural area" as under : "(a) 'Rural area' means the area comprised in any village and (b) 'rural area' includes the area comprised in any town, the population of which does not exceed 10,000 or such other figure as the Central Government may specify from time to time." The classification list was approved by the juri...
Essel Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing Dr. D.M. Mishra for the applicants and Shri B.K. Choube for the Revenue. It appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be taken up for consideration this was done by granting waiver of predeposit, duty confirmed amounting to Rs. 20,49,694/-.2. The appellants manufactured "Multilayer Plastic Laminated Web"; an intermediate product in the manufacture of their final product namely "Multilayer Plastic Laminated Tubes". They filed a declaraion in terms of Rule 173 C (1) second proviso whereby prices of such web were indicated on cost construction basis varying between Rs. 77/- to Rs. 112 per kg. and 114 per kilo. These goods were removed for captive consumption to their sister units during May, 1996 to June, 1997. One variety of such were was sold on 10 occasions to a buyer at calculated price of Rs. 233 per kg. Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of differential duty on such webs captively consumed during the period 4-9-1997 to 29-9-1997, on the ground th...
Metro Steel Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC460Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported Stainless Steel Sheets/Plates and filed bill of entry stating them as 'second choice'. The invoice also described the goods in similar terms. The contract described goods as follows : 2. These goods after examination were cleared on payment of duty on 23-10-1996. These were stored in a godown from where they were seized on 27-3-1997 in the belief that the goods were of prime quality. In permitting clearance of the goods as second choice, the shed appraiser had found goods to be of second choice. The goods subsequent to seizure were re-examined by the expert customs appraiser. He observed that no surface defects or rolling defects were noticed on the plates which appeared to be of prime quality but advised on physical chemical/mechanical tests. Subsequent examination by M/s. SAIL indicate that on examination of mechanical chemistry and other proprieties, the materials were of prime quality. The appeal papers contain mechanical composition, which is accepted b...
Entek Ird International (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT515Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application was argued by Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate. Revenue was represented by Shri Deepak Kumar, SDR.2. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 3,08,882.01 against the assessee unit. He also ordered duty to be collected on the amount of Rs. 59,731/- representing the surplus on sales tax collected but not paid and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Against this order the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed them to deposit the entire disputed amounts and penalties as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. The assessees applied for re-consideration of the order. The Commissioner in the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35L.Hence the present appeal and the application for stay.3. Shri M.H. Patil submits that although in terms of U.O.I. v. Jesus Sales Corporation judgment of the Supreme Court 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 the Commissioner could pass orders on the stay application without invi...
Shrigonda Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT833Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants availed of Modvat credit on capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the years 1994-95,1995-96 and 1996-97 to the extent of Rs. 43,13,347/-. Under the said rule the credit was admissible only where the manufacturer had not claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or as revenue expenditure under any other provision of that Act in respect of the duty component of the value of such goods. In terms of this requirement the applicants for all three years gave a categorical declaration of their non-availment of the benefits under the Income-tax Act. At a later stage the department realised that such benefit under the Income-tax Act was in fact taken by the applicants. Show cause notice dated 23-6-1998 was issued alleging suppression and mis-statement of facts, demanding duty equivalent to the credit taken and seeking imposition of penalties. The Commissioner in his order confirmed the recovery of this amount. He im...
Rotex Manufacturers and Engg. P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT492Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Cen. Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, whereunder, the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 29/93, dated 13-12-1993 passed by the Asstt. Collector approving the four classification lists filed by the appellants with effect from 1-3-1992 to 6-4-1993, denying the benefit of exemption claimed by the appellants under Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93.2. The appellant has been engaged in the manufacture of solenoid valves and spares falling under Heading No. 84.81 and for this purpose they have their factory at Manpada Road, Dombivali (East) Thane. The appellants were registered as SSI and they have held necessary SSI registration certificate. The final products manufactured by the assessee were cleared by them after affixing the brand name "SEITZ-ROTEX" with monogram SEITZ, SEMPRESS AND ROTEX. The appellant had registered the monogram 'S' with an arrow inside it and also the monograp...
Commissioner of Cus. (import) Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT199Tri(Mum.)bai
2. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. imported goods described, as "finned tubes". The goods were assessed under sub-heading 7304.49. Subsequent to their clearance the importers filed a refund claim on the ground that goods merited assessment under sub-heading 8419.90 read with Notification 172/89-Cus. as parts of heat exchangers. The refund claim was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the observation that in the absence of goods verification of the claim was not possible. He relied upon explanatory note to Heading 84.19 in the HSN which prescribed that metal tubes and pipes which had been bent or curved but not otherwise worked were not identifiable as parts or goods falling under that heading and therefore were classifiable separately. The importers then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the invoice, the drawings and also the chartered engineers certificate to the effect that they were identifiable parts of heat exchangers. He specifically mentioned that the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›