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.
Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC426Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were engaged in recommissioning of the bridge on the river Mandovi at Panaji, Goa during period 1988 to 1993. On 2-7-90 the local Supdt. of Central Excise called for certain information pertaining to the details of fabrication of certain items viz. trusses, shuttering, pipe lines etc. The appellants vide letter dated 26-7-90, described the goods, supplied the names of the job workers and also gave the cost. Thereafter, supplementary queries were made and replied up to 13-8-91. On 7-8-91, the statement of the area manager of the appellants was recorded. The activity of fabrication and construction thereafter continued. On 5-7-93, however a show cause notice was issued alleging suppression extending the larger period and demanding duty and imposing penalty. Before the Commissioner, the assessees pleaded that the fabrication did not amount to manufacture of 'goods'; that the fabrication was done by the independent sub-contractors who were manufacturers in terms of the c...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rajkumar Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC574
1. The short point involved in this appeal from Revenue is the classification of PCB Connectors of various sizes with wire and also without wire. The Assistant Collector classified PCB Connectors with wires under sub-headings 85.44 and without wire under sub-heading 8536.90. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that the PCB Connectors with wires were meant for use in goods falling under Headings 85.19 to 85.21 as also Headings 85.22 to 85.28. He ruled them to be parts of the products mentioned in these headings and classified them respectively under Headings 85.22 and 85.29. As regards the PCB Connectors without wire he made the following observation : "The Assistant Collector did not clearly bring out as to how the PCB Connectors without wire classifiable under sub-heading 8536.90 are used as or for making connections to or in to an electrical circuit. It appears that the Assistant Collector got confused with the expression 'circuit' under heading 85.36 with circuit...
Aps Star Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC518
1. The appellants manufactured water pump bearings and classified them under sub-heading 8485.90. Show Cause Notice dated 2-4-1993 cited the balance sheet of the company for the year ending 1990-91 which described certain goods as "Antifriction assemblies for Water Pumps for Automobiles/Tractors". It was alleged that these were actually parts of water pumps for automobiles and in terms of Note 1(k) of Section XVI of the C.E.T.A, 1985, should merit classification under sub-heading 8708.00. The show cause notice alleged that the assessees had wilfully mis-declared the aforesaid product and had also suppressed its true and correct nature and description at the time of filing classification lists. On this ground duty was demanded for the period March, 1988 to December, 1991. The Collector in his impugned order dated 30-6-1995 upheld the charges and confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 3,60,240/- but did not impose any penalty. The present appeal arises out of this order.2. We have heard Sh...
National Organic Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC502
This is the party's appeal against impugned order dated 6.4.1998 praying for holding that the quantity actually received in the shore tank was the quantity required to be accounted by the appellant, and the quantity alleged to have been unaccounted represented losses during storage and transit on account of natural causes, evaporation, etc. and as such entire quantity ought to have been condoned and duty should not have been confirmed, and for any other relief deemed proper and fit.1. The facts of the case in brief are, that the appellant manufactures ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene petrochemicals, for which imported raw naphtha in 4 consignments falling under Chapter 27 of 1st Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as described in the impugned order at pages and in appeal memorandum under bills of entry Nos. 8142, 8143 dated 24.2.1994 and 3368 and 3369 dated 9.2.1994 under IGM Nos.548(1)(2), 396(1)(2) of quantity of 7500 MT (10968.119 KL), 7482.881 MT (10943.084 KL), 7500 MT (...
Tesa Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC511
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods described in the invoice as flame retardant polyster electrical insulation tape. The importer had claimed classification under heading 8546.90 of the tariff, whereas the department had ordered them classifiable under heading 3919.90.2. Heading 85.46 is for electrical insulator of any material.Sub-heading 10 is of goods made of glass, ceramic and sub-heading 90 for others. Heading 3919.90 is adhesive plates, sheets, film, coil, tape, strip and other flat shapes of plastic, whether or not in roll.Sub-heading 10 is for rolls not exceeding 20 metres and heading 90 is for others. There is no dispute that the goods in question are adhesive. The only question therefore is whether they are electrical insulators or not.3. Advocate for the appellant contends that in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned before us or in the order of the Assistant Commissioner which was appealed before the Commissioner ...
Jai Laxmi Processors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC510
1. When the cases were called none appeared despite notice. Hence we heard the learned DR and pass the following order.2. In these cases the duty demand of approximately Rs. 21 lakhs has been confirmed as duty on processed fabrics clandestinely removed without payment of duty by Applicant No. 1; Applicant No. 2 is the Central Excise Officer incharge of Applicant No. 1; Applicant No. 3 is the partner of the Applicant No. 1. Case of the department has been made out on the basis of interception of the vehicle carrying processed goods coupled with statement recorded from employees of Applicant No. 1 and driver of the tempo, who all have admitted to the modus operandi adopted by the Applicant No. 1 to remove processed fabrics without payment of duty. Learned DR draws our attention to the impugned order wherein the claim made by the applicant that some duty has been paid on some quantity, has been rejected as not being substantiated in the absence of any details regarding duty payment.3. Fr...
Kopran Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC491
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of bulk drugs and formulations, some of which it exports. The dispute in this appeal relates to the extent of credit, and the goods on which such credit is available consequent upon the export by the appellant of consignments of amoxycillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate, cloxacillin sodium, cefadroxil, all bulk drugs and formulations of such bulk drugs 2. The export of these goods was made under the Duty Credit Passbook Scheme. The Scheme was in force from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1997 and has been discontinued thereafter. (The appropriate authority has, however, extended until 30.6.1999, the period within which credit under the scheme can be utilised.) The provisions relating to this scheme are contained in paragraph 54 of the Handbook of Procedures issued by the Director-General Foreign Trade. The scheme contemplated that where export is made of the goods designated in the policy, the exporter would be entitled to credit of basic customs duty. The quan...
Shyam Steels and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC459
1. These two applications are from the same applicants arise from the same impugned order and have common facts. These are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. These two applicants are Proprietory Units owned by Shri Anoopkumar Rajpal Agarwal. These units manufactured ferreous and non-ferreous metal. They purchased duty paid material. The gate passes were shown to the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers, who issued certificates in lieu of the gate passes. These certificates were accepted as modvatable documents. The charge against these two concerned is that they issued such certificate against gate passes which were not genuine, which were fake and given to M/s. Murbad Alloy Castings Ltd., who had taken irregular Modvat credit on the basis of such certificate. In common proceedings, in the impugned order, the Commissioner had confirmed the demand against M/s. Murbad Alloy Castings Ltd. and had imposed penalties upon the assessee company and several other persons, ...
Commissioner of Customs and Vs. J.M. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC194
1. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot against the order dated 29.5.89 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai. The brief facts are that the respondents purchased a ship for breaking and applied for permission under Section 52(b) of the Customs Act for lightening the ship which was granted to the appellant on 3.6.87. Since the Customs did not agree to the calculation of the duty on existing LDT of the said ship at the time of the filing and less 30% depreciation, the respondents filed Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court and the High Court passed an interim order directing respondents to pay basic Customs duty on CVD as per Actual LDT and as per the direction of the High Court respondents paid duty on 4.9.89 and deposited the disputed amount of Rs. 57,78,930 with the Registrar of the High Court they took credit of CVD of Rs. 15,06,647. They effected clearance during January 1988 of the generated scrap and utilised the credi...
Sedco Forex International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC497
1. Orders on the stay application in E/Stay-52-V/98-Bom in (E/12-V/98-Bom), E/Stay-108-RV/98-Bom in (E/30-RV/98-Bom), E/Stay-94-V/98-Bom in (E/23-V/ 98-Bom), E/Stay-92RV/98-Bom in (E/21-RV/98-Bom) and E/Stay-109-V/98-Bom in (E/31-V/98-Bom). The applicants in the above cases are the rigs contractors owning rigs, working for ONGC which are operating loading, unloading, storage and removal of imported/exported goods at Nhava base without any declaration under Section 7 of the Customs Act, as the base, under Section 8 as the Customs part (sic) [port] or the Customs area under Section 8 of the Customs Act. No Customs formalities, as prescribed under such act were observed when dutiable goods were removed for home consumption from the base. Drilling spares etc. cleared as ship stores were brought from the rigs and not returned, scrap generated on the rigs situated outside the territorial water is brought from the rigs and sold away in the domestic market. The applicants were operating outsi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »