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.
Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC181
1. When the case was called none was present for the appellants. We have taken into consideration the written submission made in the appeal memorandum and have heard Shri K.L. Ramtake, the Ld. DR for the revenue.2. The issue involved is whether the cost of corrugated folding boxes used for packing soaps manufactured by the appellants was includable in the assessable value of the soaps. In the impugned order, the Collector has held it to be includable, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Ponds (I) Ltd. and Hindustan Polymers v. CCE . In the first cited case, the Supreme Court had held that the cost of that much of packing could be includable in the assessable value in which the goods were ordinarily sold. Vide this judgment, the earlier distinction made between primary and secondary packing was removed. The second cited judgment is also the same. In identical circumstances, the Tribunal in their judgment in the case of CEAT Tyres of India Ltd. had that...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jay Hind Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC452
1. M/s. Jay Hind Industries Ltd. manufactured aluminium castings.Defective castings are received for reconditioning etc. in terms of Rule 173H. The reconditioning involved melting of the defective aluminium castings. The Assistant Collector held that such process amounted to manufacture and, therefore, the benefit of the said Rule was not available. The duty amounting to Rs. 2,22,094 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed.2. The Collector (Appeals), relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of J.G. Glass Ltd. reversed the order of the Assistant Collector. Against this order revenue have come in appeal, i.e. Appeal No. E/756/94.3. In identical circumstances, demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector to the extent of Rs. 3,98,168 was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) placing reliance on the same cited order. The revenue have filed an appeal against this order also viz., Appeal No. E/212/94-Bom.The issue being the same, these two appeals are taken up together for disp...
Anu Fertility and Contraception Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC196
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Act of Rs. 5.04 lakhs. The duty of equal amount, which has been demanded, has already been paid.2. The representative of the applicant says that the importation in respect of which duty has been demanded and penalty has been imposed, took place between July and October 1993, when Section 114A was not on the statute book; imposition of penalty under this Section is therefore not sustainable. He cites the Tribunal stay order in Pawan Foam Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE 3. The departmental representative contends that the applicant had not complied with the condition of Notification No. 64/88 under which duty free import of goods was permitted. The penalty was imposable under Sections 112 and 114A has been cited by mistake in the notice and order.4. It is doubt that whether the provisions of 114A which were enacted in 1996, would apply in case the duty is demanded in 1993. The Tribunal's stay order cited by...
Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC470
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. Appellant is an agent in Mumbai of ships owners the names of which could not be disclosed to us by its representative. A considerable portion of cargo imported on such ships is in marine freight containers. In the normal course, these containers are exported, either empty or, generally, with export cargo after the imported goods then have been destuffed. To facilitate movement of such containers the Government has by Notification 104/94 exempted such containers when imported from duty subject to the condition that the importer undertake to re-export them within six months from the date of importation and furnishing evidence thereof. The notification empowers the Assistant Commissioner to extend the time within which such re-export may be permitted.3. The appellant, on behalf of its principal, executed a bond in 1996 for re-export of such containers. A number of such containers covered by the bond could...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mustan Taherbhai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC547
1. These two appeals filed by the revenue arising out of the same impugned order were argued by Shri V.K. Suman. None was present for the respondents. On the last two occasions when the cases were posted for hearing also none as present for the respondents.2. Respondents M/s. Mustan Taherbhai imported a vessel and filed Bill of Entry for its clearance. The value of the movable gears and bunkers were also taken into account in calculating the value of the ship. The importers paid duty on the value of the ship under protest. At a later date, the Government clarified that bunkers left over on board should not be counted for calculating the cif value of the ship. The importers then claimed refund of duty pursuant to the Government instruction. The Asstt. Collector held that the claim was not hit by limitation since the duty was paid by mistake of law. For the same reason, he held that the provisions of unjust enrichment did not apply. He further held that the duty incidence had not been p...
Sp Rubber Chem Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT771Tri(Mum.)bai
and waiver of deposit of penalties of Rs. 10.00 lacs and Rs. 3.00 lacs from Kaushik Gathani (applications C/Stay-1552 and 1555/97), Rs. 3.00 lacs and Rs. 1.00 lac from Sonia Gathani (applications C/Stay-1551 and 1556/97) and Rs. 3.00 lacs and Rs. 1.00 lac from Paresh Gathani (applications C/Stay-1553 and 1554/97). The later three applicants are partners in each of the two importing firms.2. The common advocate for the applicants explains that duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the importers misdeclared 23 consignments imported by SP Rubber Chem Agency (SP for short) and 4 consignments, imported by Nipa Overseas (Nipa for short) as Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR), claimed its classification under Heading 40.02 of the tariff, whereas the goods imported consisted either of a product named V viton a polymer classifiable under Heading 39.04 or silicon classifiable under 39.10.He contends that the first consignment which are imported in 198...
Dhatu Sanskar Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC179
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, wherein he has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 20,20,973.75 and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000.The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter 72. A consignment of 9,970 M.T. of ingots was rejected by the buyer and brought back into the appellants' factory after filing D-3 intimation and entry in form-V register in 29.10.89. The premises were raided on 13.2.90 and in respect of the same quantity of material certain irregularities were found by the department. They issued a show cause notice on 11.10.94 alleging suppression etc. and invoking the larger period limitation. In the notice the total quantity demanded was 70.450 M.T. and the duty demanded was Rs. 43,336.65.2. Shri Mayur Shroff, the Ld. advocate while narrating the facts of the case stated that even if admitting that there has been certain technical violation, the duty ca...
Target Marketing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC551
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-I made in Order-in-Original No.139/1994, dated 3-1-1995 whereunder he had dropped the show cause notice in respect of short levy and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. The appellant is manufacturing goods falling under Chapters 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was producing goods from April, 1987 onwards at a place situated at Lower Parel, Mumbai. Thereafter sometime in August, 1987 the appellant shifted its place of business to Andheri. By its communication dated 10-11-1987 the appellant had applied for declaration claiming exemption. In the said declaration dated 10-11-1987 they have mentioned that the new unit was functioning from August, 1987. On 3-8-1987 they applied for Small Scale Industry Registration which was issued by the State Government on 22-12-1987. By communication dated 26-2-1988 the appellant informed the department about its quan...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC180
1. The appeal by the department against the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the assessee was entitled to the discount on the product manufactured by it claimed in the price list.2. The ground in the appeal, which was reiterated by the departmental representative, is that in the absence of the details of the percentage of discount, the categories of persons which is available, it is not permissible.3. On going through the price list we find that in respect of each product in each price list there is not more than one rate of discount claimed. Thus, for example, price list No. 166/9.3.94 with effect from 3.9.93 claimed 20% in respect of all the goods. Other price lists claimed different rates of discounts but on different goods. In that situation, there would be no question of any schedule. It will also be evident that the discount was available to all persons in the absence of any restriction in the price list. There is therefore no justification for denying the discount....
B.B. Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1047Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal where the question involved is whether copper cathode used in the manufacture of final product is entitled to Modvat credit when no declaration under Rule 57G has been filed.2. Shri Mayur Shroff in his usual fairness and lucid way put across the points to me and stated that at the time the assessee was rarely using this input in the manufacture of final product and he himself brought to my notice two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Paro Food Products v. C.C.E.Asia Insulated Works v.C.C.E. - 1993 (44) ECR 131. The DR reiterates the lower authorities' order.3. I have considered the submissions. It is not a simple case of non-mentioning of chapter sub-headings. The final product is copper cathodes. The raw materials are copper wire, bars, billets and other inputs. The item which was not mentioned here is copper cathode. It is everybody's knowledge cathode is entirely different from other raw materials even though it is fallen under the same chapter heading. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »