Mumbai Court May 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. G.E. Plastics India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC516
1. This appeal from Revenue was argued by Shri A.K. Chatterjee the ld.SDR and Shri Willingdon Christian the ld. Advocate appeared for the Respondents.2. The respondent set up a project and imported plant and machinery etc., classifying the same under Heading 98.01 as it then stood. The main contract was registered. Subsequently the importers filed for registration of an additional purchase order. This was for import of data processing machine including related software such as CAD/CAM. The requisite clearance from the DGTD was also produced. The Assistant Collector examine the application for registration. He observed that the machinery sought to be imported under the additional purchase order was to be located at about 1500 KMS away from the declared plant location. He also was of the opinion that the plant capable of being imported under the project import facility was required to manufacture or produce things and could not cover machinery used for designing, testing or for renderin...
Shanpar Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC416Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants filed classification list on 1-8-1988 in which they claimed classification for 10 chemical products under sub-heading 3003.30 as medicaments leviable to Nil Rate of Duty. This list was duly approved on 1-11-1988. In terms of this approved classification list, the assessees cleared these goods during the period 1-4-1988 to 30-11-1988. Thereafter they availed of notifications available to the Small Scale Industrial Sector and did not pay the duty in terms of those exemption notifications. On 17-3-1993 notice was issued seeking to recover duty amounting to Rs. 33,406.50 and seeking to impose penalty on the appellants, on the ground that the articles enumerated in the classification lists were in fact organic chemicals falling under Heading 29.18 and were not medicaments. It was alleged that the assessees had suppressed material fact and had intended to evade duty.The Collector in the impugned order confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the assess...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Carona Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC571
1. The respondents exported shoes in November 1993 which were re-imported and sought to be cleared vide bill of entry filed on 31-8-1994. On that day Section 20 of the Customs Act read as under :- "Section 20. Re-importation of goods. - If goods are imported into India after exportation therefrom, such goods shall be liable to duty and be subject to all the conditions and restrictions, if any, to which goods of the like kind and value are liable or subject on the importation thereof. Provided that if such importation (other than importation of goods exported in bond or of goods produced or manufactured in a free trade zone) takes place within three years after the exportation of such goods and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods are the same which were exported, the goods may be admitted. (a) in any case where at the time of exportation of the goods, drawback of any Customs or Excise duty levied by the Union or both was allowed, on paym...
M.J. Exports Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC683Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dt. 28.1.1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, in order No. CAC/No. 25/94 CAC. By this order, the Learned Collector held that the 'Haemodialysers' (hereinafter referred to as goods) imported under Bill of Entry No. 6078 dt. 9.10.1988 are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dt. 22.9.1981. He held the goods to be prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 2(33) and their export out of India, as not permissible. Since the goods had been exported out of India and not used for home consumption, they had become liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He held that by their actions, the goods are liable for confiscation and also they are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Learned Collector passed the final orders in these terms. (a) Benefit of exemption Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dt. 22.9.1981 shall be denied. The goods shall be as...
Baroda Rolling Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC230
1. The appellants were availing of the deemed credit facility in claiming Modvat on the inputs received by them. The source of the inputs was M/s. Choksi Metal Refinery who were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 178/88-C.E. The goods purchased were Refined Copper Cathodes which in terms of this Notification were unconditionally exempt from payment of duty. In the belief that the goods were clearly recognisable as non duty paid or wholly exempt for duty, the show cause notice was issued to the present appellants seeking recovery of the duty to the extent of credit wrongly availed and also imposition of penalty. The Collector in the impugned order confirmed the demand amounting to Rs.3,27,416.66 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the present appellant. This appeal is against this order.2. We have heard Shri Amar Dave, Advocate holding the brief for Shri Paresh Dave, Advocate on record for the appellants and Shri K.C.Agarwal, the ld. JDR for the Revenue.3. Shri Amar Dave...
Cce Vs. Packsale Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC155Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in all these cases is whether the duty of Central Excise can be demanded at the tariff rate from an unit Registered as S.S.I, when they cleared the goods on payment of duty at the concessional rate without availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri K. Srivastava, Ld. S.D.R., at the outset, mentioned that they have filed five supplementary appeals along with the application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.3. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents M/s. Packsale Industries in spite of the notice. We, therefore, heard the Ld. D.R. and the submissions submitted by the Respondents under their letter dt. 26.4.1999.4. Ld. D.R. submitted that the Respondents paid concessional rate of duty while clearing their goods falling under Heading 48.19 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act while remaining out of Modvat Credit scheme. As a ...
Sajjan India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC49Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized on 28-10-1996 at Varanasi, 40 bales of silk yarn. The seizure was in the premises of a transport company M/s. Vaishali Transport and Forwarding Agency, appellant in Appeal No. C/52/98. The DRI investigation showed that the consignment had been booked from Bombay by Sajjan India Ltd. (SIL for short), Bombay, appellant in C/45/98, consigned to Microweb Communication Pvt. Ltd. (MCPL for short) at Varanasi, appellant in C/46/98. Rajkumar Sharma, Director of MCPL told the officers that the consignment was part of 140 bales imported in a consignment by SIL and cleared ex-bond from Bombay against passbook without payment of duty. This was confirmed by the representative of SIL. DRI did not accept this stand and issued notice proposing confiscation of the silk under Clause (d) of Section 111 on the ground that it had been imported without the licence and proposing penalty on all three under Section 112 of the Act. Various...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Microtex India Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC47Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessees manufactured Narrow Knitted-Fabrics of Man-Made Textile Material (Elastic Tapes). The benefit of Notification No.109/86 was claimed by the assessees. The Assistant Collector observed that since the assessees were carrying out a process of tension regulation, on sharp type R-320 EM Machine, the benefit of the notification was not available, in view of the proviso thereto which sets out certain processes and declares that those processes and similar processes would render the fabrics ineligible for the benefit of the notification. Subsequently, the differential duty was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) in his order took into account, the opinion given by an independent test body namely SASMIRA to the effect that the operation undertaken on the Elastic Tape was of winding into a roll which did not result in any change in the characteristic of the elastic tape. He, therefore, held that the process of winding was a process similar to those desc...
Western India Spg. and Mfg. Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC53Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. It was the stand of the appellant before the assessing authority that the dyes which it obtained for use in manufacture were standardised and formulated, and were merely rendered ready for use by the addition of water and chemicals. They were not subject to any of the processes specified in Note 6 to Chapter 32 which are deemed in that note to be manufacture.3. The note (now Note No. 7) provides that in relation to synthetic organic dyes (including pigment dyes) of Heading 32.04, conversion of formulated, unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared forms, (for example wet cales) of such dyes by (a) reduction in particle size; (b) addition of dispersing agents or diluents; or (c) the adoption of any other treatment; into this are formulated, or standardised or prepared forms ready for use in the process of dyeing amounts to manufacture. By application of this note, it is only subjecting goods classi...
Danmet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC891Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the imported product described as "CRC Anti-corrosive Agent" is classifiable under Heading 2710 or 3811. In the impugned order the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had upheld the classification under Heading 3811, on the ground that the product was anti-corrosive, that the anti-corrosive preparations appeared in the Heading 3811 and therefore classification under that item was more appropriate. In holding so, he had derived support from the product literature of the supplier.2. We have heard Shri V.N. Deshpande, the ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chatterjee, the ld. SDR for the Revenue.3. The Deputy Chemist has suggested classification under Chapter 27 on the ground that the mineral oil content was more than 70%. We agree with the Commissioner's (Appeals) finding that the Chemical Examiner's job was to give the chemical analysis and not to suggest the classification. We have seen the product literature given by the sup...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »