Mumbai Court December 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.
Pbj-industrial Electronic Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT107Tri(Mum.)bai
1..The matter under consideration in this appeal is the classification of items Flasher Unit, A.C. Drive and D.C. Drive, Thermocouple and Single Phasing Preventer. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Dn. H, Bombay-I vide his order dated 3rd October, 1994 has classified the Flasher Unit under Chapter sub-heading 8531.00 as against the appellants' claim of its classification under sub-heading 9032.80.Similarly he has classified AC/DC Drive under sub-heading 8503.00 against the claim for sub-heading 9032.80. The item Thermocouple is classified by the Asstt. Collector in his order under sub-heading 8548.00 as against the claim of classification under sub-heading 9032.80 and the item Single Phasing Preventor is classified under 2 alternative sub-headings, viz. 8536.90 and 8536.10 depending upon its end-use whether as component parts of the air conditioning machinery or otherwise as against the claim of the classification of this item under sub-heading 9032.80.2. The appellants have also f...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Choksi Brothers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 28-6-1993 of the Collector (Appeals).2. We have carefully examined the impugned order, grounds of the appeal and all other connected records. We have also heard Shri B.K. Choubey, JDR for the appellant-Revenue and Shri Manoj Sanklecha, ld. advocate for the respondents.3. The ld. counsel has raised a preliminary objection at the outset. He submits that the authorisation by the jurisdictional Collector for filing this appeal is not proper inasmuch as the words "not legal or proper" do not figure in the text of the authorisation. He submits that any authorisation to file appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act can be given by the proper officer only after satisfying himself that the order sought to be appealed against is not legal or proper. According to him, unless these words are not used in the text of the authorisation, the satisfaction of the proper officer is not borne on record, which according...
international Solvents and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing Shri S.P. Sheth for the applicants and Smt. Reena Arya for the Revenue, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. M/s. International Solvent & Chemicals Co. are the agents of M/s.NOCIL, registered as 'Dealers' empowered to issue Modvatable invoices in terms of Rule 174 read with Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Invoice No. 153, dated 6-4-1999 was issued by M/s. NOCIL in the name of the dealers indicating payment of duty of Rs. 37,382/-. In terms of Rule 52A of the Rules, the duplicate copy of such invoice would be used for taking Modvat credit in terms of Sub-rule (3) thereof. The dealer however, made the requisite entry in his register on the strength of the original copy, the duplicate having been lost.This entry was made on 6-4-1999. On 10-5-1999 the dealer informed the Assistant Commissioner holding Jurisdictional order his area of the situation quoting Sub-rule (6) of Rule 57G of the said Rules, making a definite statement the physical goods wer...
Sanjay Bajirao Nagane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1130; 2001BomCR(Cri)375; (2001)1BOMLR729; 2002(1)MhLj959
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.2. Through these two appeals, the appellants challenge the Judgment and order dated 5.2.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1996, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :-(i) Under section 302 r/w 149 of the I. P. C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer one year R. I. ;(ii) Under section 307 r/w 149 of the I. P. C. to undergo five years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to undergo six months R. I.(iii) Under section 452 r/w 149 of the I. P. C. to undergo 1 year R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo 3 months R. I.In addition, the appellants - Sanjay Nagane, Prabhakar Mali, Kalidas Dupare, and Rajak Shaikh have been convicted for offences under sections 147 a...
Jitu Yadav Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR385]; (2001)IILLJ1622Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. This is an Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated August 29, 2000 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Thane. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, this First Appeal has been heard for final hearing. A compilation of the record has been made available to the Court by the learned counsel and with their assistance I have perused the record of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The Appellant was employed with a firm known as Rukmini Rubbers whose industrial establishment is situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. On March 9, 1992, the Appellant was working on a Milling Machine. According to the employment injury report which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, the Appellant met with serious acc...
Brassica Pharmaceuticals and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT279Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in Appeal E/1420/96 the classification of the product "Eva Herbal Skin Cream" manufactured by the appellant, and in Appeal E/1419/96 its liability to duty consequent upon such classification. The manufacturer has claimed classification of the product as ayurvedic medicine under heading 3003.30 of the Tariff. The department, after considering the opinion of the Deputy Chief Chemist after testing it that it was in the nature of a preparation for the care of the skin, proposed classification of the goods under heading 33.04. It is this classification, and the levy of duty consequent upon its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals), that is in dispute before us.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and by its letter of 27-11-2000 requests decision on merits.3. The common ground both in the appeals is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a speaking order. He has entirely gone by the opinion of the Deputy Chief Chemist, and not taken into conside...
Gujarat Aluminium Extrusions Vs. C.C.E. and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT314Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactured, on job work, parts of aluminium out of aluminium ingots supplied by luggage manufacturers, to whom it sent the parts that it manufactured. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that the cost of the material which might have been supplied to the appellant to compensate for the burning loss that takes place during manufacture, and the expenses incurred on the transit insurance of the aluminium should form part of the assessable value.2. It is the appellant's contention that it included in the cost of manufacture the entire cost of the aluminium that it received. It did not deduct any cost on account of burning loss. It is further contended that there is not the slightest material to show that the appellant for the burning loss received any material as replacement.3. Neither the show cause notice, nor the Commissioner's order cite any evidence to show that the appellant received on the order of the luggage manufacturer, any burning ...
Ramniklal Amritlal Shah Vs. Bhupendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom224; 2001(2)ALLMR592; 2001(2)BomCR479; (2001)1BOMLR670; 2001(2)MhLj536
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1. Appeal admitted. By consent, notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service through counsel Mr. Doctor.2. By consent, appeal is called out for final hearing and heard.3. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 11th February, 2000 dismissing the notice of motion. Since this is an appeal against an interlocutory order, we indicate the bare essential facts requisite to dispose of the appeal. Those facts are :-The appellant is the brother of one Madhuben @ Mridulaben Amritlal Shah who had filed the suit before this Court. The suit was filed invoking Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. The case was that the suit property was a dwelling house in the occupation of an undivided family, that the original defendant Nos. 1 to 7, outsiders to the family, had purchased the undivided share of one Mrs. Sadguna Shah, a member of the family, and on the strength of the said fact they h...
Karolia Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC532
1. This appeal is filed by above appellant, against the Impugned order No. 66/MP/95 dated 26.10.95 praying for setting aside the same, and also fine and penalty and for such other relief deemed fit.1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant firm is a Job worker, processing Man Made Fabrics received from Traders under the Central Excise Licence. On 25.7.92 during transit check, Officers of Preventive Headquarters and Intelligence unit, Surat intercepted tempo bearing No. GRV 5344 near Rubhash Petrol pump, Rustapura, Surat. It was loaded with man made fabrics and tempo driver produced Central Excise GPI No. 71/25.7.92 of appellant for verification. Fabrics loaded in tempo were not bearing lot Nos. For detailed physical verification tempo was brought to Mills premises which was done in the presence of two independent Panchas, Driver of Tempo and Delivery man and recovered 180 pieces measuring 16232.50 L. Metres valued Rs. 3,54,903.48 Ps. from the tempo. No lot No. was indicate...
C.C.E. and C. Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT710Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in each of these appeals is the same.It is whether fabrication of parts which were used to construct structures of metal which were immovable amounts to manufacture requiring payment of duty.2. In Appeal E/1033/96 notice was issued to M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Corporation Limited (hereinafter GNFC) and to M/s. Vijay Tanks & Vessels Limited (hereinafter Vijay Tanks) demanding duty from each of them on structural elements which ultimately form part of ammonia storage tank.3. In Appeal E/1034/96 duty has been demanded from M/s. Petrofils Co-operative Limited (hereinafter Petrofils) and M/s. Nila Construction Company (hereinafter Nila) on various structural elements, which were to be used in the factory of Petrofils. The Commissioner has held that duty was not payable in either case. The appeals challenge his finding.4. We will first take up the case of Petrofils and Nila. The Commissioner has noted that of the elements were fabricated t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »