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.
Amar Dye-chem 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)ECC192
1. The appellant availed the benefit of Notification 432/86. The notification grants exemption to dye intermediates to the extent of duty paid on naphthalene used in the manufacture of such intermediates.On 1-3-1994, the notification was rescinded. Simultaneously, naphthalene became eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A by Notification 4/95, dated l-3-1994(sic). The appellant applied to the Assistant Commissioner for transfer of credit which had accumulated under Notification 432/86 to Modvat account, in terms of Sub-rule (3) of the Rule 57H. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denied to transfer on the ground that since the appellant had not maintained one-to-one co-relation between the inputs and final product as required by the notification the amount accumulated has lapsed. Hence this appeal.Amal Products v. C.C.E. - 1997 (70) ECR 510 has held that Notification 432/86 did not require to maintain one-to-one relation between inputs...
Bcl Forgings 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)ECC468
1. These two appeals by the assesee and one by the Department are against the order of the Collector (Appeals) disposing of three appeals filed before him. One appeal of the assessee against this order has already been disposed of by this Tribunal in Appeal E/815/94 by Order No. C-II/2865/98/WZB dated 9.10.1998.2. It was pointed out to the departmental representative that since the Collector (Appeals) has disposed of three applications under Section 35B (2) of the Act are required to be filed, whereas one has been filed. There is also no provision in this Section to condone the delay of filing any application. He thereafter requested that the application may be considered to be filed in relation to the order of the Collector (Appeals) disposing of appeal No. V.2A (MV) 308/93.3. Representative of the assessee requests decision, on the same consideration as applied to earlier appeal.4. The facts of the issue set out in the Tribunal's earlier order and are reproduced below: Appellant man...
indus Papers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC478
1. When the case was called, none was present for the appellants. The records show that on 26.11.98 and on 22.12.98 also when the case was posted, the appellants were not present even though due notice had been sent. This case is taken up for disposal on hearing Shri V.K. Suman, JDR for the revenue.2. The appellants were making paper. Payment of cess under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act 1951, on such paper was exempted if the investment in fixed assets in plant & machinery did not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The appellants had not claimed exemption from cess in terms of the said notification in their classification lists dated 1.3.88, 1.3.89 and 20.3.90. The machinery was being indicated therein.The study made by the excise officers revealed that with effect from 29.3.89 the investment in the plant & machinery was in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, they were required to pay cess. For non-payment of cess during the period 29.3.89 to 30.9.90, a show cause notice w...
Db Technologies 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)ECC473
1. The stay application, which would have been heard in the normal course, has been taken up for hearing out of turn on the ground urged by the applicant that bank guarantee for the duty is furnished in pursuance of the High Court's order which would cover a period beyond 3 months of the Assistant Commissioner's order and that it anticipates action to be taken to enforce the bank guarantee.2. The duty of Rs. 8.95 lakhs approximately has been demanded on the ground that Uninterrupted Power Supply Systems (UPS for short) manufactured by the applicant are classifiable under heading 85.43 of the Tariff not under heading 85.04 as claimed by the assessee. Penalty of Rs. 5,000 has also been imposed.3. Advocate for the applicant contends that classification of UPS under heading 85.43 determined by the Tribunal in its decision in J.K.Synthetics CCE has been referred for reconsideration by Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Co. Ltd. v. CC .The latter decision referred to the opinion given by...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC183
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the captioned order of the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai, whereunder, he held that mephenesin which cap lively consumed in the manufacture of ointment is entitled to the Modvat credit.2. The assessees were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 29 and 30 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed two classification lists under Chapters 29 and 30 of the CETA. A show cause notice was issued stating that the bulk drug manufactured viz. mephenesin falling under sub-heading 2942.00 which were captively consumed in the manufacture of P & P medicine really ointment was being cleared on payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 31/88 and that the Modvat credit of duty paid on such input goods were being taken and utilised for payment of duty on the finished goods viz. relaxyl ointment. It is the contention of the department that since the goods are captively consumed, the assessees ought ...
Dharmesh B. Lavangwala and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC184
1. In these cases penalty has been imposed on two persons who are Director of M/s. Dharmesh Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. alleged to have clandestinely removed processed fabrics without payment of duty as required under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.2. On hearing both sides, I find that it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills v. Union of India that the provisions relating to confiscation and penalty contained in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 are not to be imported into the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods) of Special Importance) Act 1957, Ld. JDR submits that the Collector has confirmed the penalties on the ground that the assessees fall within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court which has held in the case of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. v. Union of India that the additional duty under Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles) Act, 1978 is not separate f...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. SaThe Biscuits and Chocolates Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC187
1. This is an appeal by the department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (A), Pune, whereunder, he had held that the respondents would be entitled to the Modvat credit in respect of M.G. Poster paper and printing ink which were used in the manufacture of printing waxed paper which is exempted under Notification No. 217/86.2. The assessee in this case is the manufacturer of cocoa powder, chocolate and biscuits falling under Chapter Heading 19 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules in respect of M.G. Poster paper and printing ink. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit on these inputs on the ground that they were used in the manufacture of printed waxed wrapping papers which were exempted under Notification No. 217/86 and that the Modvat facility was allowed to packing material as an input for final product and not input for another input i.e.packing material. A...
Gujarat Mineral Devlp. Corpn. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC455
1. These two appeals arise out of the same impugned order and are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. The appellants manufactured Acid grade and Metallurgical grade Fluorspar in powder form. The acid grade was cleared in powder form.The Metallurgical Fluorspar was cleared in both powder and briquettes form. This is as per the classification list filed by the assessee effective from 1-3-1986. These briquettes were made from different binders namely Sodium Silicate, Starch and Manganese. The classification claimed for all was as Fluorspar under sub-heading 2505.00. The process of manufacture described the making of briquettes as "agglomeration with binders for used in steel plant". The Assistant Collector in the first order held that such briquettes merited classification under sub-heading 6807.00 and in the second order confirmed the demand for differential duty. The Collector (Appeals) in his common order agreed with the findings of the Assistant Collector resulting ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Telco Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC199
1. The assessees in this case used certain chemicals in making of moulds and cores which were in turn used for making castings. Since sand moulds were exempted, Modvate credit on such chemicals was ordered to be reversed and penalty was imposed on the assessees. The Collector (Appeals) in his order held that the assessees were not eligible for Modvat credit for such inputs. He however, observed that where the duty was paid on processed sand, then the assessees were eligible for such credit. He directed the Addl. Collector to rework the amount of Modvat to be reversed on this count and set aside the penalty. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the revenue.2. We have heard Shri Ramteke, Ld. JDR for the revenue. The prayer made is that the Collector was wrong in holding that some processed sand was dutiable. It is claimed that even if such sand were dutiable in the absence of a declaration, under Rule 57G, the credit would not be extended. It is claimed not scrutiny ...
Shantilal S. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT721Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellant and relate to the same issue. These are therefore being disposed of vide a single common order.2. The appellants purchased a Dredger from the Kandla Port Trust, which was earlier imported in 1962 on payment of appropriate duty of Customs for the express purpose of breaking up. They filed C.L. claiming classification under Headings 7215.00 and 7309.00 and claimed benefit of Notification No. 102/87-C.E. for Basic Excise Duty and Notification No. 137/87 for claiming Nil Special Excise Duty. The Assistant Collector's order in classification dated 12-2-1988 was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) vide his order dated 11-10-1988 in which he had directed de novo consideration. In the subsequent order dated 8-2-1988 the Assistant Collector approved the subheading but ruled that the duty attracted was at the Tariff rate of Rs. 1,800/- PMT instead of Rs. 365/- PMT as applicable in terms of Notification No. 102/87. The Collector (Appeals) uph...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »