Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC189
1. Appellant absent despite issue of notice. We have heard the departmental representative and perused the papers.2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of duty alleged to have been not paid on two grounds. The first is that the appellant incorrectly availed on the provisions of Notification 25/84, dated 1-3-1984 by misdeclaring the quantity of paper actually produced. Duty demanded on this score was Rs. 26,14,765.68. The second ground was that appellant had clandestinely removed some quantity of paper and paper board without paying duty on it. The basis for this was the increased figures of manufacture of paper and boards shown in the report submitted by the appellant to the Director General Technical Development. Duty on this case Rs. 13,24,530.51.3. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector has confirmed the demand for Rs. 26,13,765.68 on the ground that the benefit of Notification 25/84 will not be available. He has also demanded duty on 3399.820 metric to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC68Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 7.12.1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise denied the benefit of notification No. 161/66-CE dated 8.10.1966 (as amended) to the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicaments, and they filed the price list and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 161/66-CE. The price list was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 16.11.1983 for the period April to June, 1983 alleging that the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 161/66-CE. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) denied the benefit of the said notification.3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the Notification No.161/66-CE provides a discount of 25% on the price spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC314Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Matter called. None for me appellants despite notice of hearing.They have however, desired that the case be decided on merits taking into account Tribunal's judgment in the case of Azad Tin Factory v. CCE as stated in their letter dated 22.2.1999. Hence, we have heard the ld. SDR Shri R.K. Sharma.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The appellants herein manufactured printed, lacquered and varnished sheets out of duty paid plain sheets. In view of this description of the goods under tariff sub-heading 7210.30/7212.30, the appellants herein were issued show cause notice on 29.9.1988 as to why the duty be not collected and recovered from them for not paying duty under the sub-heading for the period 1.3.1988 to 20.6.1988. The value of the clearance during the said period for the subject sub-heading was arrived at Rs. 8,14,118.80.The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of duty on the said goods.Thereafter the appellants herein filed an appeal before the Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)BomCR183; (1999)2BOMLR321; 1999(2)MhLj592
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant in both the courts below in a suit for eviction has filed this petition. That the open land bearing C.T.S. No. 5766 admeasuring 113.2 sq. Mtrs in village Miraj, Tal. Miraj for the monthly rent of Rs. 50/ - was taken on rent by the petitioner for his personal use. He had constructed structure in the suit premises for shop. The tenancy was terminated by the respondent on 30-9-1978 on the ground of default in making the payment of rent and also personal occupation of the landlord. The Civil Suit No. 317 of 1978 before the trial Court was filed by other respondent landlady on the aforesaid grounds and trial went on those grounds. In fact the trial Court decreed the suit on both the grounds. At the appellate stage, the landlady has given up the ground of default in payment of rent. Both the courts below found that the landlady has established her reasonable and bona fide requirement. Normally, in that circumstances, this Court is v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)ALLMR349; 1999(3)BomCR815
ORDERT.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2094 of 1994 was disposed of on merits on 4th February, 1999 (reported in : 1999(2)BomCR462 ) on that day, Counsel for the petitioner was absent. However, Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was duly heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner now filed an application for Review for reviewing the judgment. He submits that certain material points have not been considered in the judgment.2. The controversy in the writ petition is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were refused submission as member to the 4th respondent society. They sought to be enrolled in place of the petitioner who entered into anagreement for sale of Plot No. 15 with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Against refusal of admission, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application before the Deputy Registrar assailing the decision of the Society. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society on 23-10-1991 set aside the decision of the society and directed respondent No. 1 society...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)LC154Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five appeals are against the common order of the Collector, confirming a demand for duty on M/s. Tolaram Electronics, the assessee, on goods which he found manufactured and cleared by it without payment of duty, imposing penalty on V.R. Shah, Excise In-charge of the assessee; A.P. Kapadia, General Manager; N.K. Aswani, Director; Piyush N. Shah, Sales Representative and Rajeev Mital, a purchaser.2. We have heard Advocate for the assessee and four of its officers and employees. Rajeev Mital, is absent and unrepresented. We have perused the appeals papers and heard the Departmental Representative.3. The assessee manufactures video cassette housing for video cassettes. The order of the Collector demands of duty on both video cassette housing and video cassette i.e. housing complete with magnetic tape, in this case unrecorded. Advocate for the appellant does not dispute the duty demanded on the video cassette complete. He contends that video cassette housing is correctly classifia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT760Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal, with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit of duty and penalty.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that technical grade pesticides manufactured and cleared by the appellant from 23rd July 1996 to 30th June, 1997 is correctly classifiable under the Heading 3942.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, and not under Heading 3808.10 as was claimed and initially approved and ordered payment of duty consequent on the classification and imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 11 AC of the Act.3. The Commissioner orders has been issued as a result of the amendment made to Heading 38.02 and to Note 2 to Chapter 38 made by the Finance Act, 1996 which took effect from 23rd July 1996 onwards. The effect of this amendment on the classification of technical grade pesticides has been considered by the Delhi High Court in its judgment in Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India v. U.O.I. -1999 (30)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC860Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, issue for our consideration is the valuation of Caprolactum Monomer imported from M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan. The declared value was 1700 US Dollar per M/Ton. On examination of the purchase order and the letter of credit, it was found that the price mentioned therein was US $ 1770 per M/Ton. The Importer waived the issue of show cause notice but prayed for a speaking order. The matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector, Customs who determined the value as 1770 US $ PMT.On appeal, the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs was confirmed.2. We have heard Shri Ravinder Narain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Monika Singal, Advocate and Ms. Rajni Natrajan, Advocate. Shri Ravinder Narain, learned Advocate, submits that M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd., has placed order when the international price was US $ 1770 PMT. They have also opened a letter of credit accordingly. Subsequently, international price came down and their suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(82)LC664Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these two appeals is whether higher notional Modvat credit i.e. the credit on the duty not actually paid but available by virtue of rule 57B read with notification 175/86 would be taken later than the credit taken of the duty actually paid.2. The departmental representative contends that the question has been referred to the High Court in CCE v. Audhunik Detergent Ltd. 1997 (22) RLT 705 and prays that the matter may be kept in abeyance till the reference is answered by the High Court.3. There are numerous decisions of this Tribunal [CCE v. Pfyzer Ltd. 1997 (20) RLT 43, CCE v. Kay Polyplast Ltd. 1997 (22) RLT 92] holding that in the absence of a prohibition in law there can be no objection to some portion of the Modvat credit being taken at a date subsequent to the credit already having been taken for remaining portion of the duty. It has been held in these decisions that the time limit of six months which was sought to be imposed for these periods ...
Tag this Judgment!