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.
Chemical Process Equipments P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT813Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were not present but relied in writing upon two Orders of the Tribunal passed in their own case, involving the same goods. The first is Final Order Nos. 129 and 130/96-C, dated 12-3-1996 and the second is Final Order No. 582/96-C, dated 12-9-1996 1996 (88) E.L.T. 157 (Tribunal).2. We have heard Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR for the Revenue. The issue in this case, pertains to the classification of tanks and vessels as well as ducting and fittings. The assessees had claimed classification of all the products under sub-heading 3926.90. The Assistant Collector reclassified them putting tanks and vessels under sub-heading 3925.10 and ducting and fittings etc., under 3917.00. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification.3. We find that in the cited judgments, the very goods came under the scrutiny of the Tribunal resulting in the Tribunal holding these products to be classifiable under Heading 3926.90. We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the impugned order and d...
Godrej Ge Appliances Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC60Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these two matters the stay applications filed are taken up for hearing. It is brought to the notice of the bench by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the issue is a covered one and the appeal itself may be heard, to which learned JDR has no objection. So both the appeals are taken up for consideration as submitted with the consent of JDR. In both these appeals, the issue involved and the input are the same. So both the cases are taken up together and common order is passed in Appeal E/228/99.2. This is the party's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai dated 18.11.1998, praying for setting aside the same and to restore the order-in-original and for further relief, if any. In Appeal E/228/99 the appellant Godrej GE Appliances Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of refrigerator and the appellant Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. in Appeal E/229/99 is engaged in the manufacture of among other products, safe, strong boxes and other fu...
Flexoplast Abrasive (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC190
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 62198 and penalty of Rs. 5,000. Applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the stay application and heard the departmental representative.2. The applicant had filed in December 1994 an application for taking credit on stock of inputs under Rule 57H. After some exchange of correspondence the applicant without waiting for formal communication took credit. Subsequently the Assistant Commissioner passed Order dated 9.1.1995 rejecting the application on the ground that Modvat credit was not available on paper and paper boards from 1st April, 1994. Notice has been issued for recovery of wrongly taken credit. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed this demand which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.3. The stay application does not make any grounds for waiver of deposit. Appeal makes emphasis on the ground that credit was available under Rule 57H. However, we are prima facie, unable to fi...
Prayas Casting Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC64Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal was argued by Shri K.A. Sindhi, Consultant and the revenue was represented by Shri K.M. Patwari.2. The assessees manufactured various articles of copper including cast articles of copper. Heading 74.19 reproduced below covered such cast articles: 7419.10 - Chin and parts thereof 15% 7419.91 - Cast, moulded, stamped or forged, 15% but not further worked Notification No. 98/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 vide SI. No. 1 prescribed Nil rate of duty for "cast articles of copper". This notification was superseded by Notification No. 178/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 whereby cast articles of copper, continued to attract Nil rate of duty.However, unlike in the case of earlier notification, this notification limited the exemption to cast articles which fell under sub-heading 7419.91.3. During 1-3-1988 to 9-7-1989 the present appellants filed several clas sification lists showing the classification of such products, under sub-heading 7419.91 and claiming the benefit of the cited notification...
Neoluxe (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC304Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal No. 1229/99 is the supplementary appeal filed in pursuance with the direction of this Bench. Since the main appeal bearing No.3560/98 was filed in time, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal. Though, today only the stay applications were listed for hearing, the issue being settled, with the consent of both the sides, the main appeals diem-selves were taken up for disposal.2. The assessees manufacture paper based laminated decorative boards falling under heading No. 4823.90. They had filed declaration in terms of Rule 57G showing the various inputs used by them in their products from time to time. In two show cause notices, charges were made to the effect that certain varieties of papers used by them were not specifically included in the declaration filed by them and that the inputs were declared in broad and general description. On this ground modvat credit already availed was sought to be denied and sought to be recovered. The assessees relied upon certain judgement...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC197
1. The issue in this appeal relates to denial of credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on cutting oil and quenching oil used for cooling of steel. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate authority who has extended the credit of these two items, holding that they are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product namely forgings by the respondent.2. We have heard Shri Yadav, the learned DR who relied upon the Tribunal decision reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 80 in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. C.C.C., in which it has been held that cutting oil and quenching oil which are used as lubricants in the manufacture of motor vehicle components are neither raw materials nor components and hence not eligible for the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 201 /79.3. Shri Kulkarni, learned Chartered Accountant submits that the expression in Rule 57A namely "used in or in relation to the manufacture of" is wider than the language of No...
Searle (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC188
1. These are the applications filed by waiver of pre-deposit totally amount of Rs. 5,23,29,30//-. There is equal amount of penalty levied on the director, the penalty of the stay of recovery of the same.2. Question involved in these Appeals are as to the classification of the product "pesticides" and "the technical grade" as well as "formulations" made by the appellants' factories at Panoli and Ankleshwar. Two show cause notices dated 19-1-1998 were issued seeking to classify the goods for the period from 23-7-1996 to 30-9-1997 under Tariff Item 29.42. The further question that arises for the Tribunal's consideration is effect of the amendment made in the Tariff Entry 38 in respect of Chapter Note 2 thereof in 1996.3. Shri J.J. Bhat the ld. Sr. Counsel arguing along with Shri S.S.Gupta stated that the matter is not res integra as the question has been fully decided by the Delhi High Court in the case of Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India v. Union of India an...
Khemee Dying and Bleaching Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC454Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Original dated 14.5.1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay confirming a duty demand of Rs. 4,63,214.70/- against the appellants apart from a redemption fine of Rs. 55,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. Appellants are engaged inter alia, in dyeing, bleaching and printing of man made fabrics falling under Item 22 of the erstwhile tariff.Apart from dyeing and bleaching of fabrics, appellants were also engaged in calendering of fabrics which are known as "top dyed fabrics" or "plain grey fabrics". They had filed their classification lists in respect of calendering of fabrics and claimed exemption under Notification No. 297/79. The said notification exempted fabrics falling under T.I. 22 from Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 provided the process mentioned in the Table under notification alone are carried out and no other process is carried out in the same premises where the processes mentioned in the ...
Sunrise Soaps and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC182
1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 31,57,732 confirmed in the lower orders and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed as also for the stay of recovery thereof.2. Shri Lodha, the Ld. advocate relies upon the Stay Order Nos. C.I/460 to 467/99 WZB dated 26.3.99 in an application made by the same applicants where the same issues were involved.3. We have satisfied ourselves that the issues in the two matters are the same. We take note of the submission that out of the disputed duty, the applicants have already paid Rs. 8 lakhs as cash deposit as the pre-condition to hearing of the appeal as per the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals). Following the earlier cited order of the Tribunal, we direct the assessee to retain the cash deposit already made with the Commissioner and subject to this condition, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.4. The registry is directed to fix...
Concept Pharmaceuticals (P.) Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: (2000)73ITD174(Mum.)
1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VIII, Mumbai dated 11-11-1988 for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The assessee is a private limited company (Industrial). The assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the previous year ended by 30-6-1984. The assessee, which is hereinafter called the company for short, filed its return of income on 31-7-1985 disclosing a sum of Rs. 6,88,200. It had filed a revised return on 30-9-1986 declaring a sum of Rs. 11,18,530. According to the assessee-company, the revised return is a return filed under the Amnesty Scheme in force at that time. However, the Assessing Officer had refused to treat the return as Amnesty return. However, he completed the assessment by his order dated 30-3-1988 on a total income of Rs. 16,36,468. While completing the assessment, he treated a sum of Rs. 4,00,625 which represented peak of raw material purchased by payment of cash as income derived from other sources. The refusal to treat the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »