Mumbai Court November 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.
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC509
1. These two appeals have been filed against the orders dated 30.12.97 and 20.12.96 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai -IV and Mumbai-III.2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of cement in its factories located across in India. One of the most common items used in the construction and building industry in India is concrete. Concrete is used at tens of thousands of sites throughout the country where buildings, bridges, dams, etc., are being built. The appellants state that the excise during the relevant periods and periods prior thereto did not contain any entry covering "concrete" or an "in process" material called "READY MIX CONCRETE" (RMC) and even otherwise concrete/RMC was not regarded as excisable commodity by the department. It is further stated by the appellants that in the present proceedings for the first time after several decades the excise department is trying to levy duty on RMC even though neither the expr...
Philips India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC538
1. After hearing both the sides on the stay application we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal, with the consent of both sides.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification under the customs tariff of the electronic diaries imported by the appellant. These are pocketsize diaries, which have provision for recording telephone numbers, addresses, and are able to perform functions of calculation. The goods were cleared after accepting the classification claimed by the appellant under heading 84.71.Subsequently, the department, in a notice issued under Sec. 28 of the Act, proposed classification under heading 84.70, and recovery of differential duty. The Assistant Commissioner, adjudicating on the notice, held that diaries were classifiable under heading 84.70. This has been confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the appeal.3. It is the contention of the representative of the appellant that the electronic diary is nowhere specified in the cus...
Ramniklal Salagia Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC696
1. Ramniklal Salagia is the proprietor of M/s. Commodity General. This firm imported two consignments of carboxylic acid in October, 1992. The chemical was manufactured in the People's Republic of China and sold by a supplier in Hong Kong. The value declared for each consignment of 1000 kgs. was Rs. 83,255 CIF. The department was of the view that this consignment was undervalued. It found that carboxylic acid imported from Germany at this time was invoiced at around DM 400 per kg.Applying that price the value of each of these consignment would work out to Rs. 7,88,000/- CIF. The department's enquiries also showed that the consignee in the master airway bill for the consolidated cargo, of which these consignments formed part, was M/s. Jac Air Services (as the agent for the cargo consolidator at Hong Kong), of which the managing director was Lalit Jobanputra. Jobanputra was the proprietor of Jac Enterprises, the custom house agent that was appointed by the importer to clear the cargo th...
Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT781Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In its order passed on 28-7-1998, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of M/s. Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (Nilgiri for short) and Shabbir Patel, its Director, on a finding that the extended period contained in the proviso under Section HA of the Act, which was invoked in the notice, would not be available. An application for rectification of this order filed by the Commissioner, contending that part of the clearance of the product manufactured by Nilgiri, on which duty was demanded, was made within six months of the relevant date, and hence would not be barred by limitation, was allowed, and that portion of the order setting aside the demand for clearances during this period was recalled and matter listed for further hearing.2. We have now heard both sides and now proceed to give our finding.Nilgiri obtained from M/s. Vaibhavlaxmi Enterprises and others plastic bottles containing detergent. These bottles bore a label on them. It is not clear whether all these bottles, which were in o...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(96)LC176Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have been filed against the orders dated 30.12.1997 and 20.12.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV and Mumbai-III.Appeal No. E/688/98-Bom Order-in-OriginalNo. 27/97 Dated 30.12.1997Appeal No. E/640/98-Bom Order-in-OriginalNo. 284/96 dated 20.12.1996) 2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of cement in its factories located across in India. One of the most common items used in the construction and building industry in India is concrete. Concrete is used at tens of thousands of sites throughout the country where buildings, bridges, dams, etc. are being built. The appellants state that the excise during the relevant periods and periods prior thereto did not contain any entry covering "concrete" or an "in process" material called "Ready Mix Concrete" (RMC) and even otherwise concrete/RMC was not regarded as excisable commodity by the department. It is further stated by the appellants that in the pr...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Beepee Coating Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC676
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's order wherein he set aside the denial of modvat credit by the Asstt.Commissioner. The present application has been filed by the respondents for early hearing of the department's appeal on merits.2. Shri A.K. Jain JDR represented the Revenue. None appeared for the assessee.3. The point of law being very short, the appeal was taken up for disposal. The respondents availed modvat credit of duty on certain goods. It appeared that there were two exemption notifications relating to the inputs. One prescribed concessional rate of duty and the other one granted clearance free of duty. The manufacturers of the inputs chose to pay the concessional rate of duty instead of availing of the other notification. When the recipient manufacturer who is the respondent today took the credit, the credit was denied in the impugned proceedings.4. The Respondent relied upon the Tribunals's Order No. C-I/2101-2110 dated 2.6.2000. Paragraph 9 th...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Binani Metals Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT909Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Argument on this appeal were made yesterday and for want of time it was listed for dictation today.2. M/s. Ashoka Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, Ashoka) imported two consignments of electrolytic nickel cathode in October, 1995 and filed on the 16th of that month bills of entry for their clearance. The bills of entry were assessed to duty. The importer however did not proceed with the clearance of the goods. The supplier of the goods re-sold them to M/s Binani Metals Ltd. (Binani for short). Binani made a request through the agent of the Custom House to the Commissioner for amendment of the manifest to show it as the importer in place of Ashoka. That request was accepted. Binani thereupon filed in November, 1996 two bills of entry for clearance of the goods. The value that declared by Binani, supported by invoices of the supplier, was lower than the value declared by Ashoka. The Custom House was of the view that it is the price at which the goods were invoiced to Ashoka that woul...
Sunanda Pandharinath Adhav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR809; (2001)1BOMLR710; 2001(1)MhLj167
B. H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioners are the teachers working in the respondent No. 6 school which is run by the respondent No. 4 society and it is an unaided school. The petitioner No. 1 has already retired from service during pendency of this petition and other petitioners are still in service. They claim that they are entitled for payment of salary as per the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations with effect from 1st January, 1996. including the other benefits like house rent allowance, dearness allowance etc. and, therefore, they are seeking directions to that effect.2. Respondent No. 4 has filed return and opposed the petition. It is averred that the respondent No. 4, which is a public trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, is running in all 13 schools out of which 11 schools are of Marathi medium and 9 of them are grant-in-aid and remaining 2 are on non-grant basis. The respondent No, 5 is one such English medium school which is being run on non-grant basis. The t...
Marcus Nunes Alias Marcos Nunes S/O Late Escolastica Placido Nunes and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR603
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This civil revision application is filed by the applicants/ original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 27th September, 1999 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in Special Civil Suit No. 50/98/SR(I), whereby the application of the defendants/respondents herein came to be allowed and the plaintiffs' suit was kept in abeyance till further orders. 2. From the pleadings, it appears that the applicants herein/plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 50/98/SR(I) in the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa against the defendants for declaration and for partition of the suit property, which was mentioned in para 12 of the plaint. The defendants appeared and filed written statement, wherein most of the averments made by the plaintiffs came to be admitted. More significantly, the averment of the plaintiffs with respect to the shares of the parties was admitted. In para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have spe...
Kesharbhai Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT852Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The limited dispute in this appeal is on the classification of "fan regulators". The assessees claimed classification under sub-heading 8414.20. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held the same to be classifiable under sub-heading 8414.99.2. Shri K.R. Bulchandani, learned Counsel, fairly concedes that the following judgments are against the assessees inasmuch as they make for classification under sub-heading 8414.99, (4) Order Nos. C-I/2992-94/WZB/2000, dated 4-9-2000 [2001 (130) E.L.T. 576 (Tribunal)] 3. In all the orders the Tribunal has concentrated on section note 2(a)bb to Section XVI. It is his plea that the applicable section note is note 2(b) which would support the assessees' contention.4. We have considered this submission. The provisions of sub-note (a) are imperative. Where the parts are specifically included in a heading under chapter 84 they have necessarily to be included in their respective heading. The Heading 84.14 in its entirety reads as below :-"8...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »