Mumbai Court May 2000 Judgments
Narmada Chemator Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the stay application was called out it appeared that the issue being covered by a CEGAT judgment, the main appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 6,10,580/-and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The appellants received steam through pipeline on which the suppliers had paid duty, and took Modvat credit thereupon. The credit was denied on the ground that the steam was exempted under notification 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 as amended and that a manufacturer could not pay duty in spite of the exemption merely to create Modvat benefit for their buyer. This denial was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) placing reliance on the Board's circular F. No. 93/13/90-CX-3 (No.2/91-CX., dated 4-1-1991). Hence the appeal.(T) (Everest Converters v. CCE) the Tribunal in identical circumstances, after examining the cited circular, had held that where there was a notification it was not obligatory on a manufacturer to avail its ben...
Tag this Judgment!Apple International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT671Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,37,888/- and penalty of the same amount.2. The Commissioner in the impugned order referred to the show cause notice which alleged that the manufacturer of the export goods having taken input stage Modvat credit, the conditions of Notification 203/92-Cus were violated and therefore the duty mentioned above was chargeable. In his ex parte order the Commissioner maintained that the respondents had not filed reply nor had they attended the personal hearing.3. From the records we find that on receipt of the show cause notice, the present appellants had written to the Commissioner to the effect that the licence number quoted in the show cause notice was wrong and that the number showed was the import export code number. There was no response from the Commissioner to this reply. It is true that...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Arc Electrodes Pvt. Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC661Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Credit amounting to Rs. 4,300/- taken in pursuance of subsidiary certificate dated 28-3-1994 was denied on the ground that the certificate was endorsed by the appellants to themselves. I have seen the certificate. The appellants had another unit having a separate Excise registration in whose favour the subsidiary certificate was issued and later was endorsed to the present appellants. Even if it is taken to be a second endorsement it would still be available. I thus find that this part of the credit was admissible.3. The second ground involves an amount of Rs. 79,200/-. The related invoices were issued by DCW Ltd. in favour of LG Enterprises. However the column indicating destination of the goods contained the names and addresses of the appellants. The Commissioner upheld the rejection in such situation without under taking any discussion. I find that the subject invoices show the name of the present appellants as the recipient of goods. Shri M.H. Paul refers to CBEC Circular No.96...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Dyg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These Appeals are taken up for decision after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. The appellant has a composite mill in which the process of spinning of yarn, weaving of fabrics and processing of such fabrics takes place.The appellant utilised in its composite mill for weaving quantities of man-made yarn classifiable under chapter 55 of the tariff manufactured by it. Up to 3-9-1996 there was no exemption available to such yarn captively consumed and duty was required to be paid on it. The duty at the relevant time is ad valorem. The common question for consideration in these appeals is whether for computing the duty payable on such deemed removal for the period from April, 1995 to 3rd September, 1996, it is the value of the sized yarn or the value of unsized yarn that should be taken into account.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) had refused to accept the contention of the appellant before us that sizing was not a process of manufacture since it was not so specified in the no...
Tag this Judgment!Colt Cables Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT757Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice but requests decision on merits.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of electric cables, which are insulated with polyvinyl chloride. The notice to show cause dated 24-9-1992 issued to the appellant by the jurisdictional Superintendent proposal recovery of Modvat credit taken by the appellant of the duty paid on so much quantity of polyvinyl chloride compound which was contained in scrap cleared by it without payment of duty under Notifications 53/88 and 14/90 as amended. Penalty was also proposed.3. The appellant took the stand that the scrap was in the nature of waste or by product and Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57D permitted credit to be taken on inputs used in the manufacture of final products notwithstanding that some quantity of waste or refuse or by product cleared by it without payment of duty. The Assistant Collector did not accept this contention and said that the scrap was a final product and hence Rule 57C will not apply....
Tag this Judgment!Anand Chintamani Dighe and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2203
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by a social worker who is the 1st Petitioner and by the author of a book entitled 'Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy' (I am Nathuram Godse speaking) who is the 2nd Petitioner. The petition challenges an order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane by which he has prohibited the performance before a private audience of a reading of the play, described in the Petition as an 'emoted' reading, which is to take place on 19.5.2000 at 9 p.m. at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The Police Commissioner in passing the aforesaid order has relied upon a Notification issued on 3.12.1998 by the Government of Maharashtra by which, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Government of Maharashtra declared that every copy, including the manuscript, or any other form of the play i...
Tag this Judgment!Vip Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC699
3. The applicant sells luggages manufactured by it at the factory gate, as also at its depots. The question is whether, after amendment of Section 4 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1996, whereby there was provision made for a depot to be considered a place of removal within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act, and also for accepting separate prices prevailing at each place of removal, the freight incurred by the applicant for transporting the goods from the factory gate to the depot should form part of the assessable value.4. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have declined to accept the applicability of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. for the reason that the position in law has changed. We are prima facie unable to see how, by the amendment carried out to Section 4, the position with regard to inclusion of freight has undergone any change. It appears to us prima facie that...
Tag this Judgment!JatIn Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC810
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed before him challenging the confiscation ordered by the Additional Commissioner of some of the items seized from the possession of the appellant.3. The equipment in question consisted of digital video mixtures, central processing unit for computers, video camera, a few video cassettes, and circuit boards used in computers. Jatin Mehta, the proprietor from whom the goods were seized, in his statement, states that he purchased the goods from some anonymous suppliers, whom he used to meet for this purpose at the restaurant and that he paid for these goods in cash, and that he did not receive any bill or other documents from them. Subsequently, he has produced three baggage receipts showing importation, two in his name, and one through another person claiming that this cover importation of part of these goods. The Additional Commissioner has refused to accept these receipts on the ground that the d...
Tag this Judgment!Dcw Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)77ITD462(Mum.)
1. The assesses is in appeal for the assessment year 1988-89 against the order dated 10-10-1991 of the CIT (Appeals)-XVI, Bombay.2. The only ground involved is relating to the computation of book profits under section 115J. As the income of the assessee, after statutory deductions, was less than 30% of the profits and gains derived from business, the provisions of section 115J have been invoked. As provided under section 115J, book profits have been computed and tax levied @ 30% thereof. The assessee's claim is that the sum of Rs. 64,32,496 and another sum of Rs. 27,72,158 withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss account ought to have been reduced from book profits as stipulated in clause (i) of Explanation to section 115(1). The CIT(A) has declined to adjust the aforementioned amounts on the ground that though Explanation to section 115J provides for adjustment in respect of the amounts withdrawn from the reserve account, yet the proviso is not applicabl...
Tag this Judgment!Nrc Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC663Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two applications are disposed of by this common order. The common question involved in these appeals is eligibility to credit under Rule 57Q of various items in the applicant's factory.2. The items involved in application E/241/2000-Mum are alloy copper bar, copper bar, copper strip etc. The advocate for the applicant has made a list of these items, indicating them, their use, the amount involved and decisions of the Tribunal. On hearing the departmental representative, it appears to us that prima facie a large majority of these items are covered by the decisions of this Tribunal. The credit has been denied only on the ground that each of the items in question is not directly used to produce any goods or to process any substance.The decision of the Tribunal, particularly the decision of the larger bench in Jawahar Mills v. CCE have taken the views that it is not only those items which are directly used to produce any goods or to bring about any change in any substance that wo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »