Mumbai Court March 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ballarpur Indus. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC655
1. This appeal from the revenue was argued by Shri Deepak Kumar, SDR.The respondents were not present.2. The respondents assessees were selling certain chemicals in glass bottles which were returnable by buyers and were reused by the assessees. Against breakage of such glass bottles, the assessees used to collect security deposit which was forfeited in case the buyers broke any bottles. The Collector himself had observed that this situation arose only once in 3 years. The Asstt. Collector after issue of show cause notice confirmed the demand of Rs. 4346.05 on adding the value of such security deposits to the assessable value. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the value of returnable and durable containers could not be added to the assessable value and set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector. Hence, the appeal from the Revenue.3. The single point made in the appeal memorandum and argued by Shri Deepak Kumar was that the containers could not be called durable and returnable. We ...
Tag this Judgment!Garg Casteels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC648
1. This case was posted for hearing of the stay application but the point of law being settled, the appeal was taken up for hearing on granting waiver of deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 67,604 and penalty of Rs. 19,500.2. On considering the case of the appellant before him on the stay application, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed Order dated 24.12.98.The appellants deposited Rs. 34,000 as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. He did not hear the appellants drawing strength from the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of DCW v. CCE 1998 (97) ELT 424. The appellants did not comply with the order and their appeal was dismissed in terms of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Hence, the present appeal.International], the Tribunal had in such circumstances held that the Commissioner was required to give a chance to the assessees to be heard before dismissing the appeal before him. The Gujarat High Court also in their judgment in the case of Ricoh India Ltd. in which a re...
Tag this Judgment!Search Chem Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given a finding as to whether Modvat credit is available or not on tonners, gaskets, respirators, rubber lining on machines, heat pump spares, rubber components, rupture disk and chimney with regard to each of this. The appeal is allowed to this extent and the matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to determine this issue according to law.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the credit on mild steel tank for water storage, HDPE storage tank and chilled water tank for the reason that these are used only to store finished product and therefore are not required for producing or processing the goods. The contention of the appellant is that these are also used at times to store raw material or processed material. If this plea is correct, they could be said to be used for producing or processing the final product. We allow credit on these items subject to it being established before the Assistant Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT959Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in this case re-imported certain goods which they had earlier exported. The Asstt. Collector held that the goods had been re-imported in terms of Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 and permitted their clearance without payment of duty. The Department then approached the Collector (Appeals). The Collector in his order held that where the goods had been exported under a bond, payment of customs duty was mandatory on their re-importation. He denied the ratio of the judgment reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 306. He directed the Department to take follow up action. On record there is a certificate, dated 22-7-1992 from the Jurisdictional Supdt. to the effect that the additional excise duty was debited in PLA of the importer to the extent of Rs. 25,038/-. The assessee importers filed this appeal on 29-9-1994.Reference to the PLA deduction was made in the stay application. The Tribunal in their order on the stay application, dated 1-12-1994 held that the duty had not been quan...
Tag this Judgment!Milan Metals and Tubes Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC48
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The order impugned in this case appeal of the Commissioner of Customs comes to a finding on the basis of the examination of goods and statements of Kamlesh Shah, the proprietor and M.H Shah, stated to be the authorized signatory of the appellant. None of these documents is shown to have been enclosed to the notice to show cause which relies upon them, and letter dated 12.8.1999 written by the Advocate for the appellant to the Dy. Commissioner asking for copies of these documents as also for the price lists of London Metal Exchange at which the goods were proposed to be valued, has been unanswered.3. The appellant has thus been denied access of its primary material on which the Commissioner has found the goods to be either primary or defective and not scrap as declared. This order cannot be upheld.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and impugned order set aside. The Commissioner may adjudicate, in acco...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. United Timber Traders Vs. M.V. samudra Maya and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR87
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs had contracted to ship 173 logs of Yellowbalau Timber Round Logs purchased from Bombay Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. through vessel M.V. Samudra Maya of which the owners are defendant No. 3. The 3rd defendant issued a liner bill of lading in respect of 173 logs. The vessel berthed at Vishakapatnam Port on 6th July, 1986. Out of the 173 logs, 104 logs were short delivered with a cubic measurement of 604.98 cub.mts. valued at US $ 71,559.06 equivalent to Rs. 8,98,983.17. These facts were communicated to the defendant No. 3 by letter dated 12th July, 1986.2. Based on the pleadings the following issues were framed:---1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are a firm, duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs purchased the 173 logs from M/s. Bombay Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit consignment was shipped aboard the 1st defendant vessel? ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prabhatkumar G. Thatte Vs. Kisan Maruti Raut, Since Deceased by H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR368
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The present first appeal has arisen from the judgment and order dated 16th September, 1983 passed by the learned Joint Judge, District Court Pune in Misc. Application No. 292 of 1976 dismissing the said application, which was filed by the applicants under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), claiming an interest in the trust and the trust property for setting aside the decision of the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay in Appeal No. 50 of 1973 under section 70 of the said Act, dismissing the appeal on 5th February, 1976 which arose out of the decision in an enquiry under section 19 of the Act being No. 59 of 1967, concluded on 19th December, 1972 by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region holding that there did not exist a public trust and, therefore, it was not necessary to register the trust under the Act.2. To trace the origin of the present proceedings, I have an application da...
Tag this Judgment!Konark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom389; 2003(2)BomCR838
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Tenderswere invited by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation for the appointment of an Agent for the collection of the duty of octroi imposed and levied by the Municipal Corporation. The reserve price was fixed at Rs. 36.33 crores. Broadly speaking, the tender notice envisaged that the successful bidder would have to remit 2% of the amount under the contract every week to the Corporation for50 weeks, irrespective of the amount of octroi collection. The terms and conditions governing the tender were contained in instructions issued by the Corporation to tenderers. Clause 6 of those Instructions prescribed the following eligibility conditions :--'a) The offerer must have a minimum annual turnover of 50% of the tender value either in the current financial year or in any one of the last two preceding years. b) The net worth of the offerer shall not be less than 10% of the tender value.' Clause 7 of the Instructions provided that an offer may not be accepted, if any of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT764Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The applicants manufactured certain excisable goods without obtaining a registration, without following steps prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder; and cleared these goods without payment of duty. On a visit to their factory when these facts came to notice, the officers seized finished goods totally value at Rs. 84,00,000/-. These were released provisionally under B.11 bond duly backed by a bank guarantee, being filed by the applicants.These seized goods were subsequently exported without payment of duty.Show cause notice was issued on 23-2-1994 seeking recovery of duty of Rs. 27,85,296/- on past clearances and alleging liability of the goods seized to confiscation and of the notices to penalty. Subsequently on 13-11-1998 the present applicants filed an application for settlement of the dispute under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The Commissioner acting as the designated authority passed orders on 6-5-1999 and determined amount payable ta...
Tag this Judgment!Biddele Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC39
2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the relevant papers and heard the departmental representative.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal before him for reason that the applicant did not deposit Rs. 28,000 out of the total duty demanded of Rs. 56,658 and penalty imposed of Rs. 5000.4. We do not find it possible to agree that merely because the hearing was not granted this order is not maintainable. The Supreme Court in judgment in UOI v. Jesus Sales Corporation 1996(83) ELT 486 has held that a hearing in stay application is not mandatory. However that Court in the same judgment has said specifically that the concerned authority applies his mind in passing the order. It is not possible for us by reading the Commissioner's order on the stay application to come to this conclusion. The Commissioner's order consists of a printed format.It is evident from the words in the format that it is used to dispose of the stay application filed in appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »