Mumbai Court October 2000 Judgments
Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT721Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing Shri Ganesh, Admn. Manager of the applicants' unit and Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR, for the Revenue, it appeared that on a short point of law, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,86,753.56 confirmed as duty in the impugned order.2. The assessing of the goods cleared by the assessee was done on provisional basis for the period 1-10-1975 to November 1987. The issue involved was the quantum of addition on account of margin of notional profit. The assessees have paid duty on the values calculated on the addition of 10% profit for the period 1-10-1975 to 30-6-1979.Thereafter, they did not add any profit at all. The issue was finally settled by the CEGAT where the margin of profit was determined at 5%.The Revenue's appeal against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The show cause notice was issued on 17-4-1997 proposing to finalize the assessment and demanding duty as aforesaid from the assessees. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ceat Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC159
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department making a plea that a valuation of the imported material which are claimed by the respondent at US $ 470 PMT CIF was wrongly made and it should be fixed at US $ 840 PMT CIF.2. The respondents before us imported 136 MTs Stearic Acid filed into bond Bill of Entry No. 12282 dt. 29.9.95. They also filed purchase order and letter of credit. The department did not agree with the value declared by the Respondent for purpose of assessment at transaction value resulting in the Order-in-Original being passed by the Assistant Commissioner increasing in the value to 840 PMT. The respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who by the impugned order rejected the case of the department and allowed appeal of the respondents. Hence the present appeal.3. The Department's case as revealed in the grounds of appeal is that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the normal transaction value in the course of International ...
Tag this Judgment!Usha thermosets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. -i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC49
1. The Tribunal, in its order passed on 13th March 2000 had noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) whose order was impugned before it had not given an independent finding on the issues before him and that there was in fact no decision on merits; the decision of the Tribunal, which the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon, had been recalled by it.2. The Tribunal thereafter went on to say that in the event the Assistant Commissioner to whom it proposed to remand the matter found against the appellant before it on merits, he should then consider the views in the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Nagpur v. Paradise Conductor - 1999 (84) ECR 900.3. The application before us today contends that, by applying the ratio of the decision in CCE, Nagpur v. Paradise Conductor Pvt. Ltd., the Asstt. Commissioner's order would have to be held to be illegal, being in excess of his jurisdiction, since he adjudicated upon a notice issued under Section 11A of the Act demanding duty of Rs. 5.34 lakhs approxima...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ryben Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC182
1. This appeal have been filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. 4/96 BCH dated 10-1-1996. The Department has filed the appeal on the following grounds : - The order of learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is not legally sustainable on the following, amongst other grounds, which are; 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and applied the case law erroneously. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has read the serial II of sensitive item in the Handbook of Procedures, 1992-97, Vol. II in part and not as a whole. To illustrate the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the preamble to the List II of Sensitive List, Handbook of Procedures, Vol. II which reads, "In respect of the following items licence shall be issued with value restrictions as indicated against each, both under quantity based licence and value based licences". The rider to the entry 1 of the side list rea...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC515
1. The appellants imported consignments containing valve parts namely discharge valve reeds and suction valve reeds. These goods were cleared on payment of duty. The goods were taken to the importer's factory.When the cartons were opened, the goods were found to be less than the invoice quantity. The surveyors were called in. The survey report indicated shortage of 88,000 pieces of discharge valve and 3,000 pieces of suction valve. The survey report clearly stated that the cartons had been opened prior to the survey. The appellants contacted the suppliers who admitted short shipment of 90,000 components of the discharge valve reeds but confirmed that the suction valve reeds were sent as per the order. The importers then filed refund claim. The claim was rejected on the ground that the assessee had not filed the required documents. The importers then filed an appeal. The Commissioner noted certain contradictions in the statement made by the importers and those made in the survey report...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. S.B. Reshellers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC186
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Pune, made in Order-in-Original No. 75/CEX/93 dated 15-12-1993 whereunder he has held that process of Reshells of Rollers in respect of Sugar Mills does not amount to manufacture following the Circular of the Board contained in Circular No. 3/86/CEX dated 14-2-1986.2. The respondent are engaged in carrying on the business of manufacture of the Sugar Mills rollers and seller shells. The question involved in this appeal is whether such an activity comes within the ambit of the term manufacture in terms of the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Show cause notice dated 24-12-1993 was issued by the Jurisdictional authorities against the respondents proposing to levy duty on such activity. The adjudicating authority by the impugned order, after elaborately discussing various notifications as well as the Board Circular has held that the activity under...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT237Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures in its factory purified terephthalic acid (PTA for short), the principal raw material for polyester filament yarn. Part of this PTA was captively consumed in its factory for making the yarn, the remaining being cleared on payment of duty. The PTA cleared for home consumption is packed in laminated plastic bags. The PTA cleared for captive consumption is generally not packed although some quantity of it was to be so packed. At the relevant time PTA captively consumed was not exempted from duty. The appellant filed price lists showing the cost of the PTA for captive consumption. This was not accepted on the ground that the price of PTA that was cleared for home consumption being available, it is that price that should be applied. Adjudicating on the notice the Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), confirmed the demand for duty. He did not accept the appellant's contention that since the PTA cleared for captive consu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Harison Chemical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT266Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported sodium saccharin, valued at Rs. 14,91,42,305/- in Augst, 1994, and claimed its clearance in terms of a value based advance licence issued to M/s. Kaujan Enterprises, Ahmedabad and transferred, in accordance with law, to the appellant. At the relevant time goods imported under value based advance licence, were entitled to duty free clearance in terms of Notification 203/92 subject to other conditions in the notification being satisfied. The appellant claimed and was granted the benefit of the notification for sodium saccharin.2. The notice issued to the appellant in February, 1995, proposed denial of the claim for exemption. The notice advanced as reason for the denial of the claim that there was no balance left in the import licence. The appellant replied contending that the entire balance was available. The Assistant Collector adjudicating on the notice, passed an order holding that the sodium saccharin was not covered by the licence. His reasoning was as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Dye Works, Mulji Shah and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC513
1. These three applicants for stay have been filed by the appellants staying operation of impugned order where under the assessee was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 23,93,843.87, penalty of Rs. 23,00,000 and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 each on other two appellants. Order also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The assessee is a firm of partnership consisting of two appellants namely Mulji Shah and Sudhir Shah. The appellants firm was carrying on the business of manufacture man made fabrics from October 1988 to 1stFebruary, 1993. On 16.2.1993 they suspended the manufacturing operations and surrendered their licence. Thereafter they had given their premises for manufacturing activity to M/s. Oswal Dyeing and Printing Works represented by its proprietor Dheeraj Deepak Haria. He joined the business from 16.2.1993 onwards. On 4.5.1993 the officers visited the premises and found certain irregularities and violation of the Central Excise Act as well as Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Impor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Parekh Marine Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC171
1. These three appeals have been filed by Revenue against following findings of Commissioner on the following grounds: M/s. Parekh Marine Agencies P. Ltd., have admitted the mistake. They have only pleaded that the mistake is technical in nature. They have stressed that it was the responsibility of M/s. Transworld Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., who are the slot agents for these goods to furnish the information. They have stated that it is the responsibility of M/s. Transworld Shipping Services (I) P. Ltd. to include the subject 4 containers in the Import Manifest Sheet before unloading from the vessel. I also find that M/s. Transworld Shipping Services (I) P. Ltd. have in their statement dt. 19.7.94, clearly admitted their responsibility. Therefore, it is clear that the main responsibility of declaring the containers in the IGM lies with M/s. Transworld Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. and not with M/s. Parekh Marine Agencies P. Ltd. Being the main agents of the vessel, they had to d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »