Mumbai Court September 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.
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Tuncosi Electrical Contracts
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT746Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The dispute in this appeal centered around the classification of a product known as nozzles which are used for spraying slurry on the working teeths of rock rolling drills bits so that the teeth would function better. The Asstt. Commissioner classified the product under Heading 8207. The Tariff Entry for which reads as under :- "Interchangeable tools for hand tools, whether or not power operated, or for machine-tools (for example, for pressing, stamping, punching, tapping, threading, drilling, boring, broaching, milling, turning, or screwdriving) including dies for drawing or extruding metal, and rock drilling or earth boring tools." 2. In the appeal filed by the assessees the Collector (Appeals) ordered classification under Heading 84.24. The relevant Tariff Entry reads as below :- "Mechanical appliances (whether or not hand-operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders; fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances, steam or s...
M.R. Ambedkar Dental College and Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC238Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is a dental college and hospital. It imported in 1991 25 dental chairs and 20 dental units totally valued at about Rs 1.00 crore. Duty free clearance was claimed in terms of Notification 64/88.This notification ex equipments, apparatus and appliances used in a hospital as may be approved by the designated authorities of the Government of India. Among the conditions required to be fulfilled for availing of the exemption are that hospital must be certified to be run for providing free medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment to an average of 40% of outdoor patients and that 10% of the hospital beds are reserved for treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month. Condition 4 of table to the notification and the proviso occurring in the notification after condition 4 reads as follows: 4. Any such hospital which is in the process of be...
Govan Soma Tandel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT772Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 13 appeals were posted together for early hearing. We have heard Shri S.R. Rakshe, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.2. In disposing of the stay applications the Tribunal in their order had made the following observations:- " We have heard the submissions. We find that all applicants have placed on record affidavits and certificates from the revenue officers to the effect that they have no means to deposit even a fraction of the penalties imposed upon them. We find that in the impugned order the Commissioner has not discussed evidence relating to each of the applicant and the grounds on which in the face of the retractions etc. he has established the offence against the applicants. In the "findings" portion also paragraphs 50-51, 52 and 53 contain merely a summary of the events. Paragraphs 54 to 59 relate to the confiscation. Paragraph 60 establishes role of the applicants without any discussion at all. Ld. Counsel during the submissions pleade...
M/S. Crescent Petroleum Ltd. Vs. M.V. monchegorsk and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom161; 2000(3)ALLMR714; 2000(1)BomCR645; (2000)1BOMLR297
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the defendants for dismissal of the suit and for directing the plaintiffs to pay to the defendants sum of U.S.$ 349,518,56 towards the defendants claim for wrongful arrest and detention of the first defendant vessel. Alternatively it is prayedthat pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs be directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalised Bank in favour of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, in the sum of the defendants claim of U.S.$ 349,518,56. 2. The defendants claim the dismissal of the suit on three grounds. These are: (i) That the suit in rem is without jurisdiction and not maintainable against the defendant vessel; (ii) That even on the plaintiffs reasonably best arguable case the suit as framed is not maintainable; (iii) That the suit as framed and on the basis of which the Warrant of Arrest has been obtained is vitiated by material misrepresentation or by su...
Pathan Nawabkhan Vs. Dr. Liyakatalikhan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR195; 2000(4)BomCR528; (2000)2BOMLR715; 2000CriLJ1237
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. The present petitioner approached the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, vide Appeal No. 43 of 1992 challenging his termination. The learned Presiding Officer by his order dated 30th August, 1993, allowed the appeal and passed the following order : ...
Rosemount (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC349
1. The question for the consideration is the valuation of goods imported by the appellant from M/s Rosemount Inc. USA. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Asst. Collector that the appellant Rosemount Inc. and the foreign collaborator were related and that by application of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rule 1963, lump sum royalty payable by the appellant to the collaborators on the sales of the product made by the appellant were to be included in the assessable value of the goods imported by it. These goods consisted of components required by the appellant to manufacture electronic pressure transmitters.2. Then Advocate for the appellant raised the contention that the appellant and Rosemount Inc. are not related persons. For them to be related there has to be mutuality of interest and each of them must be shown to have interest in the business of the other. He does not dispute that the foreign collaborator had his interest in...
Orion Chem. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT69Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in these four appeals, the Addl. Collector of Central Excise has confirmed the demand for duty issued on Mohatta Household & Industrial Products, the manufacturer of the goods and imposed penalty as well as ordered confiscation of the goods seized and plant and machinery etc., imposed penalty under 209A on Rajratan G.Mohatta (Appeal E/ 640/91) its partner and V.N. Pandit (Appeal E/641/91) and on Orion Chem. Pvt. Ltd. (Orion for short) (Appeal E/639/91).2. The common representative of the four appellants does not dispute that duty was liable to be paid on linear alkyl benzene, sulphuric acid manufactured and cleared without payment of duty for the period from 1st January to 10th February, 1990. He says however the appellant was entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of this product. It was also entitled to rework the assessable value by deducting the element of duty now held to be payable. The departmental represent...
Kinetic Engg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT935Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessees manufactured televisions classifiable under Heading 8528.00. Vide serial No. 18 of Notifica- tion No. 87/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 as amended, concessional rate was prescribed for such television receivers at varying rates. Assessees claimed benefit of this notification in their classification lists. This classification list was approved on 22-10-1992 with a direction that they should file a price list before removing the goods. Since the show cause notice was issued separately, the reasons for which the SCN was to be issued were not spelt out in the classification list while being approved. The SCN was issued in November, 1992 seeking denial of the benefit of the notification on the ground that the television receivers marketed by the assessees had certain features which turned the television receiver in a complex machine capable of performing several functions. The show cause notice fairly stated that principal function of the machine being that of receiving televisio...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT687Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application proposes to refer the question as to whether it is permissible to construe "items like PVC pouches and key chains (which are not subjected to any process in the manufacture of travel goods but are supplied with the travel goods and which is not starutorily required under the provision of any of the law) as eligible inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the travel goods as laid down in Rule 57A." 2. The respondent was represented by Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Executive, who stated that his advocate was not available and handed over some written submissions signed by the applicant. The preliminary objection that the application does not show the date of the receipt of the order and therefore, it cannot be determined whether the application is in time, is answered by the copy of the order received by department, which shows the date of receipt to be 22-9-1998. The application received in the Tribunal on 23-11-1998 is, therefore, in time.3.The second preliminary objec...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shefali Arts
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT928Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal imported automatic chain making machines. The goods were cleared granting the benefit of Notification 159/86 according to which as amended and in force when the goods were imported, the machines were exempted from payment of duty if "used in the process and manufacture of gem and jewellery for the purpose of export" by registered exporters of gem and jewellery Cooperative Societies goldsmith and artisans subsequent to the clearance of the goods. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence carried out investigations, which led to believe that the machines had been used for production of chains, part of which were exported, the remainder being sold in the local market. Notice was accordingly issued to the importer proposing disallowance of the notification on the ground that the condition that the machine should be used for the purpose of export had not been complied with. In the reply to the notice, the importer took the stand that a substantial portion of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »