Mumbai Court October 2000 Judgments
Kamani Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC830
1. When this slay application was called out, it appeared that in view of the number of judgments available on this issue, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,90,593 confirmed as duty.2. The denial of Modvat credit of this amount was on the ground that the invoices stipulating payment of duty were not having printed serial numbers and the invoices were not in the prescribed format. In these situation, two judgments were cited by Smt. Arya, SDR. In the judgment in the case of Derby Textiles Ltd. the Single Member held that the wordings under Rule 57GG(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required that the Sr. number be pre-printed, that the rubber stamping from franking machine could not be cosidered and in this situation, the credit was denied. Similar view was held by another Single Member in the case of M.A. Prestressed Works .3. Shri Jore representing the appellants relied upon yet another judgment of the Single...
Tag this Judgment!international Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT572Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai passed orders suspending the CHA licence of M/s. International Shipping Agency, CHA Licence No. 11/1107 under regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 pending further investigations in the matter. The appeal is filed challenging the merits of the order. A stay application has also been filed.2. We have heard Shri V.M. Doiphode, advocate for the applicants and Shri K.M. Patwari for the revenue.3. The appellant was found operating under the licence of another CHA namely M/s. D.H. Patkar & Sons. In the case of importation made vide bill of entry No. 8689, dated 22-4-1998 the Joint Commissioner passed orders enhancing the assessable value and reporting the fact of unauthorised operation of the CHA for further action. This order was passed on 7-4-2000. In another case this CHA came to the adverse notice of the Customs where a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed upon him.This order was made by the Commissioner of Cus...
Tag this Judgment!Shalimar Plastics Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC722
1. On hearing both the sides, it appeared that at this stage itself, the appeal could be disposed of. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,58,215.2. The situation in the appellants' case is unusual. The appellants imported plastic scrap in May/June 1993 and filed B/E for their clearance. There was a dispute as to whether the goods were scrap or prime plastic goods. At the direction of the High Court, the goods were bonded Under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute was settled by the CEGAT directing clearance as scrap after mutilation.This order was dated 3.11.95. The goods were released to the appellants in June 1996 under a challan issued by the Central Warehousing Corpn.The assessee thereafter took the credit. After issuing show cause notice, credit was denied on the ground that the same was taken after six months from the date of issue of the duty paying documents. The appellants, then filed an appeal. The Commissioner directed them to pre-deposit th...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Krishna Machinery Manufacturing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT249Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee took deemed credit on steel sheets not more than 5 millimeter thick received by it between 26-7-1990 and 30-4-1991 at Rs. 500/- per metric tonne. The actual deemed credit available was Rs. 700/- per metric tonne, the amount having been raised from Ri. 500/- per metric tonne to Rs. 700/- per metric tonne by government's ordei of 12-7-1990. The appellant realised that by mistake it was availing lower arr ount of credit and in October, 1991 asked the Assistant Collector for permission to take the difference between Rs. 500/- and Rs. 700/- per metric tonne on the quantity of the sheets received by it. The Assistant Collector denied the credit on the ground that eight months had elapsed between the receipt of the goods and taking of the credit.On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that credit could be taken and allowed the appeal. Hence the appeal by the Commissioner.2. The ground in the appeal is that there is no provision in the rules for credit to be taken later than t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalaxmi Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC302
1. Appeals E/2501/93 and E/120/95 are by Mahalaxmi Glass Works Ltd. (Mahalaxmi for short) and Western India Glass Works Ltd. (WIG for short) and E/2499/93 by Mahesh Chand, director of both these companies.These three appeals, and the department's appeals E/1499/94, F/896/95 and E/1023/9S are against the common order of the Collector.3. Mahalaxmi and WIG manufactured inter alia bottles for beverages.During virtually all of the period with which we are concerned - February 1983 to January 1988 - it sold these bottles to Glass and Ceramics Decorators (GCD for short). GCD, after printing the logo and product information of such manufacturers on these bottles, sold the bottles to the beverage manufacturers. The respective jurisdictional Collectors issued notices in 1988 to Mahalaxmi and WIG proposing that in view of the fact that majority of the bottles were sold to GCD, it is the price at which GCD sold these goods that should form the basis of the assessable value. The notice proposed to...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Petrochem. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC295
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ethylene, propylene, butadiene, toluene and other products. It had claimed benefit of notifications 190/75, 75/84, 27/89 and 102/90 during the various periods with which this appeal is concerned. These notifications provide partial exemption from duty to raw naphtha used in the manufacture of commodities specified therein, subject to other conditions contained in the notification. One of the conditions of the notifications is that where the exemption is claimed for the raw naphtha in a place other than the factory of its production the procedure contained Chapter X of the rules must be applied for. Notice was issued to the appellant on 3-6-1994 demanding duty on the raw naphtha. The notice mentioned that the appellant obtained in its manufacture carbon black feedstock (CBFS for short), which is not mentioned as final products in any of the notifications; it therefore alleged that the raw naphtha was not used for the purpose specified i...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ramesh P. Karani Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC289
This appeal is filed by the above appellant against the above Captioned Impugned Order dated 7.4.1988, praying for setting aside the penalty imposed, and allowing the appeal with consequent relief as deemed fit.1. The brief facts of the case are that DRI Officers, on receipt of prior information, kept surveillance and intercepted one scooter No.MMN 3427 alongwith Harakchand Jain and Munilal Jain, Near Victoria garden, Mumbai, when Harakchand Jain was about to keep a gunny bag, which he had taken delivery from third person, in the dicky of the said scooter. On examining it in the presence of independent Panchas, it contained 100 gold biscuits with foreign mark, valued at Rs. 22,50,000 (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand), seized under both Customs and Gold Control Act provisions, under the reasonable belief, they were liable to confiscation. Investigation was conducted. On completion, show cause notice of 22.4.85 was issued to both the above persons and appellant why they should no...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hoec Bardahl India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of various products imported by HOEC Bardahl India Ltd. The goods were described by the importer as carburettor cleaner, octane booster, radiator fast etc. The customs house was therefore of the view that the goods should be classified under heading 3811.00. This heading covers anti-knock preparations, viscosity improvers, and other prepared additives, for mineral oils (including gasoline) or for other liquids used for the same purpose as mineral oils. It therefore did not accept the classification of the importer of heading 27.10. The Asstt.Commissioner issued order to classify the goods under 3811.00.2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the test report for the goods showed them to be composed of non-aromatic mineral hydrocarbon oil additives having flash point having 94C. That mineral oil contained hydrocarbon oil more than 70% of the weight. Going only by the test report, she con...
Tag this Judgment!The Svadeshi Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC150
1. The above appellant has challenged the above captioned Impugned order dated 5.11.1999, praying for setting aside the same, and for other appropriate relief. (1) The brief facts of the case are that appellant manufactures Fusible Interlinings Coated fabrics, under Chapter 5903.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Rs. 96,15,185.97Paise Excise duty paid during 16.5.1988 to 28.2.1989, was claimed by the appellant as refund based on the order dated 21.4.1989 of Commissioner (Appeals), and Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division II, Mumbai-II sanctioned it on 10.4.1990 in Order-in-Original. The department, after review, filed EA2 appeal on the grounds RT12 returns were not endorsed with "duty paid under protest" under Rule 233B(4) of Central Excise Rules and refund claim was time barred under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, and it was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) on 3.3.1992. Department filed an appeal to the tribunal which was rejected on 5.6.1988, with the direction that re...
Tag this Judgment!Bigen Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC825
1. These two appeals have 7-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III made in Order-in-Original No. 35/98/Commr.Mumbai-III. In the impugned order the Commissioner has confirmed the show cause notice for the period from April 1988 to 11-8-89 and from 26-8-91 to March 1993. The order excludes the period already covered by Order-in-Original dated 17-10-91 passed by the Assistant Commissioner from 12-8-89 to 25-8-91. He confirmed the demand of duty at Rs. 12,75,877.05.The impugned order imposes a penalty of Rs. 12.5 lakhs as well as imposition of fine etc.2. A show cause notice dated 28-10-93 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-II, inter alia denying the exemption claim by the assessee under Notification No. 140/83-CE. In paragraph 19 of the said show cause notice the authority admits the existence of deed of assignment but deny the exemption on the ground that clause (6) of the Notification No. 140/83 does not make any distinction between brand name ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »