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.
Jasubhai V. Soni Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC457
1. The appellant on arrival from New York omitted to declare studded gold jewellery totally valued at Rs. 6,89,881 as also miscellaneous baggage goods totally valued at Rs. 97,015. The Collector in his order confiscated the undeclared goods absolutely and imposed penalty of Rs. two lakhs. Against this order, the present appellant filed an appeal.The Tribunal in their order upheld the findings of the Collector and dismissed the appeal. The present appellant then filed writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Before the High Court, the present appellant argued that the gold ornaments were not prohibited articles and, therefore, the Tribunal should have given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. The counsel for the Government submitted that this contention was not raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, the plea could not be raised before the Court. The High Court in their order observed that the Tribunal order did not indicate that ...
Visen Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC466
1. M/s Visen Industries Ltd. started manufacturing Softener in 1987. On 27-1-1988, they wrote to the jurisdictional Supdt. saying that they were manufacturing three articles including Octadex EM (Softener) falling under Heading 3402. They claimed that these goods were fully exempted under Notification No. 78/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. It was claimed that raw materials were duty paid. In the reply dated 8-2-1988 the jurisdictional officer certified that the exemption claimed for Softener appeared to be correct. On.8-4-1988, the same classification was claimed for the same goods and the exemption was claimed under the same notification. Application was made for grant of a licence also.The classification list was filed bearing No. 1/89-90 for softener under sub-heading 3402.90. The Asstt. Commissioner changed the classification for such softener to heading 3809 and applied the Tariff rate in classification, the assessees moved the Collector (Appeals).The Collector (Appeals) in his order d...
Dr. Beck and Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC461
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune made in File No.V/Modvat/15-128/Adj/89, dated 19.12.1991 wherein the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 4,36,705 under Rule 571 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, and he also levied a penalty of Rs. 50,000.2. The Appellants are manufacturing a number of chemical products such as thinners, paints and varnishes including enamels and lacquers, etc.with the Modvat claim for the inputs w.e.f. 1.4.86 the Appellants filed declaration in terms of Rule 57G by its communication dated 31.3.1986.The said letter mentioned the inputs as well as the finished goods. The Appellants modified some of their existing products and they were under the bona fide believe (sic) [belief] that no further Modvat declaration was required to be filed in respect of the said products, as the products are of the same kind finished products already declared and were cov...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC454
1. The above appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad. The second appeal is by M/s.Jyoti Structures Ltd. who are manufacturers of transmission line towers falling under Chapter Heading 7303.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. They carried out the manufacturing of the above mentioned item for M/s. TISCO, the first appellant herein, on job work basis. TISCO has entered into a contract with MSEB for supply of transmission line towers. Order was placed by TISCO with M/s. Jyoti Structures Ltd. The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the real assessable value or the true and correct assessable value should have been the normal price at which it was sold by TISCO to its customers namely MSEB and other electricity boards. The Show Cause Notice also proposed to impose penalty. The Collector passed the impugned order confirming the demand by applying the extended period of limitation and imposed penalties on both the appellant...
Videocomp Electronics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC475
This is a party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 27-10-1998 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III praying for setting aside the same and to decide the appeal on merits and set aside the order for duty and penalty and for such other relief.1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of TV Mechanical Tubes falling under Chapter 84, CETA, 1985, holding registration certificate. On the verification of the statutory records by preventive staff of Division IX, it was noticed that the appellant had removed 10,139 numbers of TV mechanical tuners under the cover of the delivery challan without payment of Central Excise duty and following Central Excise procedure such as clearance under invoice and accounting for RG 1 register. The appellant stated that the goods were received for repairs from the customer and returned after the necessary repairs, and they could not show any documents such as D-3 declaration unde...
Asra Syed Ahmed Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC489
1. The appellant is a citizen of the United States and was apparently a student there. She came to India on 11th December, 1996 on visa valid for three months from the date of entry, to attend the marriage of a relative. On the 27th February, 1997 she married an Indian national. By a declaration filed before the Customs authorities on 19th November, 1997 she communicated the fact of her marriage and of her intention to permanently settle in India and to import the car. She imported the car on 15th January, 1998 and claimed clearance import licence in terms of the Public Notice No. 3/97, dated 31-3-1997 of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. Paragraph 2B of this public notice permits a foreign nationals married an Indian national to import a new or old or passenger car. One of the conditions is that the importer is a foreign national coming to India for permanent settlement. The department found that this condition was not satisfied in the case of the appellant. On the basis of t...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goel Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC472
1. The assessees in this case imported certain inputs by post parcel in the months of June, July, August and November, 1993. They received from the Customs a certificate as to the payment of additional duty of Customs (C.V. duty) for all these consignments on 9.12.93. A declaration was filed by them on the same day and credit was taken thereafter. The Asstt. Collector observed that the inputs had been received much earlier. It was observed by him that on receipt of the inputs, the assessees should have filed a declaration and, therefore, denied the claim for Modvat. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the Asstt. Collector was wrong in holding that the situation was covered under provisions of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He referred to Mumbai-I Collectorate Trade Notice No. 57/89 dated 22.6.89, which prescribed that Modvat credit would be taken on the basis of the certificate, issued by the Customs authorities in the case of import by post. The Collector observed that...
Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC487
1. In this bunch of appeals, question involved is whether amount of freight refunded by way of deposit money could be included as part of assessable value when contracted freight charges have been paid and a part thereof have been refunded for charges of valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1963.2. In this batch of appeals, in appeal No. C/1772/92A, Shri Mayur Shroff for Willingdon & Asso. appeared for the appellant. In respect of the remaining batch of appeals in C/1042/93 even though M/s. Willingdon & Asso. have filed the appeal, Shri Mayur Shroff has failed to get any instructions from them.3. We have taken up all these appeals for disposal as we find the question of law involved is same.4. The appellant is a limited company having its factory at Kalol District, Panchmahal, Gujarat for the purpose of manufacture of steel ingots and other iron and steel products, the aid of electric arc furnace. Appellant had imported various consignments of melting scrap of iron a...
Usan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC480
1. This is a party's appeal against the impugned order dated 9.1.95 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai praying for setting aside the Order-in-Original as modified thereunder and for permission to avail the credit even for the period beyond six months from the date of receipt of the input and for other deemed relief.The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to take credit of duty at a later stage after one month to 10 months from the date of the receipt of the goods. The appellant manufactured bulk drugs under Chapter 29 of CETA, 1985, under which Modvat credit on the various inputs received and used in the manufacture thereof. They are applying of the procedural formalities in that regard. They receive the inputs during March 1991 to April 1992 and taken the credit during the period March 1992 to July 1992. The show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent on 7.8.92 calling upon them to show cause as to why the Modvat credit of duty o...
Bayer Diagnostics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC191
3. Duty has been demanded on samples of reagent strips and kits manufactured by the applicant which were utilised by it, either for testing in the course of production of goods, or kept as reference samples under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and thereafter destroyed after the expiry period of the strips in question. Duty has been demanded by the Commissioner on the manufacturer as taken place.4. The contention of the advocate for the applicant that the goods have not been removed from the factory and therefore duty is not payable in terms of Rules 9 and 49 and also that they have been utilised become unmarketable either the expiry of having been utilised in the testing prima facie supported by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v.Sudarshan Beopar Co. Ltd. and Bezal Pharma v.Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai 1998 (28) RLT 741.5. The departmental representative's contention that the goods were not entered in the RGI register does not address the issue on the liability to duty....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »