Mumbai Court October 2000 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.
Akay Filtips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT761Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has found that Asahi Safety Inds. Pvt. Ltd. (Asahi for short) and Akay Filtips (Akay for short), both located at Vapi Gujarat are in fact one company and the value of their clearance ought to be considered as one. He finds that as a result of doing so, the limits prescribed in Notification 175/86 have been exceeded and has confirmed the duty of Rs. 71,404/- for demanded pn this basis. He has also imposed penalties under 173Q(1) of Rs. 25,000/- each on Akay and Asahi and imposed penalties of Rs. 5,000/- each on A.K. Shah, director of Akay and Indira Shah, Amit Shah, B.V. Lodhania, M.P. Vaidya, who are directors of Asahi.2. The notice issued to both these firms proceeded on the footing that it was Akay which was the actual manufacturer and that the creation of Asahi was undertaken by it as a facade to avail the benefit of notification. This is what that Commissioner has accepted to be the case.3. After hearing both sides, we are not ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Cosmos Containers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT845Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the off cut arising out of the cutting of metal sheets, required in the process of manufacture by the respondent of containers are to be classified as scrap, or as flat rolled products classifiable under Heading 72.10 or 72.12 of the tariff. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has accepted the submission made by the appellant before him that the off cuts or trimmings were about half to 2 inch dimension. He, after considering the explanation of the term "waste and scrap" occurring in Section XV in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) held that the goods would have become scrap and would not be considered to be flat product.2. Reliance by the Commissioner (Appeals)' order of the Explanatory Notes to the HSN is questionable. The definition of scrap occurring in the Explanatory Notes is different from the definition that is found in the tariff. In view of this difference, t...
Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT763Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consid-eration in this appeal is the value for assessment of the molasses produced by the appellant in its sugar mill and captively consumed by it in the manufacture of alcohol. The value was required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules on the basis of price of comparable goods sold by another manufacturer. The appellant had declared for its captive clearance between January and March, 1995 a value of Rs. 850 per metric tonne. The department did not accept this value on its finding that molasses had been sold at much higher prices during this period by other sugar mills, and proposed enhancement of the value to Rs. 1600 per tonne. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector has applied that price to the clearances made by the appellant in January, 1995. He has applied a price of Rs. 1100 per tonne to the clearances made during the other two months. Although the appeal questions the enhancement of value ...
M/S. Rochem Separation Systems (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tas Engineering Co. P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom210; 2001(2)ALLMR343; 2001(2)BomCR39
ORDERF. I. Rebello. J.1. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they manufacture and/or market desalination plants under the trade mark 'DISK TUBE'. The Plaintiffs was incorporated in 1992 and commenced business of manufacturing and marketing plants for desalination and purification of water since October. 1992 and since then has been continuously carrying on the said business. Plaintiffs have been selling their products under trade marks DT DISK TUBE commonly abbreviated to DT MODULE since 1992 on an extensive scale. The Plaintiffs have applied for registration of trade marks DT, DT DISK TUBE and DISK TUBE in Class 7 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The said applications are pending. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that though they have applied for registration of the mark DISK TUBE, they are also marketing goods under the mark 'DISC TUBE'. Plaintiffs have annexed various...
Goa Carbon Ltd. Vs. V.M. Muthuramalingam and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR215; 2001(3)BomCR596; [2001]251ITR348(Bom)
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents.2. The writ petition arises out of an application made for refund by the petitioner vide letter dated February 11, 1983, seeking a clearance certificate from the income-tax authority. The tax was payable by the petitioner in pursuance of an agreement entered into between the petitioner and Alcan International Ltd., Canada. By that letter they enclosed photostat copy of the authorisation of the payment to Alcan International Ltd., Canada. The clearance certificate was necessitated to send payment to Alcan International Ltd., from deducting the tax payable by them.3. The petitioner and Alcan International Ltd., entered into an agreement for transfer and grant of full disclosure of a certain process and technology for the injection of air into rotary coke claimers through shell mounted apparatus as is described in U.S. Patent No. 3,966,560 which is called 'Method of Calcimine Coke in a Rotary Kiln'....
Rakesh Sherpalsingh Rana (Shri) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)299; 2001(5)BomCR186; 2001CriLJ606
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner who claims to be friend of detenu Desh Raj Gulati, by this habeas corpus petition prays for quashing and setting aside of the detention order dated 27th October, 1999 issued by the detaining authority under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.2. On 27th October, 1999 the detaining authority especially empowered under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act issued detention order directing that Shri Desh Raj Gulati be detained under the COFEPOSA Act after being satisfied that his detention was necessary to prevent him in future from abetting in the smuggling of goods. The detention order was served upon the detenu on 19th February, 2000.3. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised many grounds, in our view this writ petition deserves to be allowed on the basis of ground (iv) raised in the writ petition and accordingly we are not dealing with the other grounds raised by the learned Counsel. Ground (iv) raised in the writ petition reads thus :'(i...
Falguni Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT841Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Although the stay application has been listed today, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has demanded duty from the appellant on the ground that benefit of Notification 203/92 which was granted when the goods imported by the appellant was cleared from Customs is not due to it for the reason that it was availed of Modvat credit.3. It is the appellant's contention that it was never the importer. It obtained the advance licence subsequent to an export of goods which it transferred in accordance with law and therefore ceased to have any connection with the licensee. It is further contained that the notice to show cause was not received by it.4. The matter was adjourned on five occasions from 11-11-1999 onwards to enable the departmental representative to verify this contention of the appellant. There is still no clear evidence to show that the notice was received by the appellant. A copy of the notice ...
Korgavkar Diamond Tools Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT161Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today an application for stay of collection of penalty of Rs. 47,437/- and fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been posted. The appellant is carrying on business of manufacturing "Diamond Segmented Circular Saw Blades" coming under Chapter Heading 8202 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The charge against the appellant was that he had removed certain quantity of Cobalt Metal Powder, without complying with the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules. It resulted in the levy of duty as well as the penalty in terms of Section 11 AC of the Act. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by the impugned order without giving an opportunity to the appellant dismissed the appeal. Following judgment in the case of Entek IRD International (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II [2000 (115) E.L.T.515 (Tribunal)] and Ricoh India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1999 (34) RLT 231 (Guj.) hence I have taken up the present appeal, after hearing the parties and waive the pre-depo...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Chloride India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT900Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Chloride India Limited, the respondent to this appeal, claimed clearance of a consignment of lead ingots imported by it against five import licences. Duty free clearance in terms of notification 116/88 was claimed for part of the consignment covered by a REP licence issued on 26.02.1986 with an 18 month validity period. The validity of the licence was to expire on 31st August, 1988. The Custom House, believing that the bill of lading was not issued on 30th August, 1988, made enquiries and found that the carrying vessel called Dar Es Salaam, the port of lading only on 3rd October, 1988. The Custom House therefore concluded that the goods were shipped, in terms of paragraph 82 of the Import Policy for the relevant period only in October, 1988 and that therefore the benefit of the licences (and consequently the notification) was not available to the goods. The Collector, and the adjudicating authority after hearing the representative of the importer (written notice to show cause ...
indus Engineering Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT842Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods described as recovered monomer tanks and monomer mix tanks. While the appellant classified these goods under heading 7309.00 of the Tariff, the department was of the view that the goods were classifiable under heading 7311.00 attracting higher rate of duty. The Collector confirmed the notice issued for recovery of duty following such classification. Hence this appeal.2. Heading 73.09 is for pressure vessels, tanks and similar tanks for any material of iron or steel (other than the compressed and liquified gas) Heading 73.11 is for containers for compressed or liquified gas of iron or steel. We are unable to find on reading either in the show cause notice or in the order of the Collector any material justifying this view. The notice to show cause cites a condition in the purchase order that the goods were to be subject to tests to show compliance with the purchaser's specifications for pressure vessels;...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »