Mumbai Court May 2000 Judgments
Auto Ignition Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1127Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal adjudicates upon two notices to show cause notice issued to the appellants. The notices, which are identical in facts, allege that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 in respect of the goods imported by it, for the reason that one of the conditions of the notification, contained in paragraph 5(v) was contravened, since Modvat credit was taken on the inputs used to manufacture the export goods. In his order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty.3. The appellant's reply to the notice does not, in terms, assert that credit was not taken. It dwells mainly on availability of credit on the imported raw material, with which the notice was not concerned. Even so, it was up to the Custom House which alleged that credit had been taken, to show that this was the case. The departmental representative was given an opportunity to have this aspect verified at the last hearing. He tells us today th...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Knitters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT367Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 9.54 lakhs.The duty has been demanded on the ground that pleating of fabrics undertaken by the applicant is a process of manufacture within the meaning of note to chapter 54 of the Tariff.2. The representative of the applicant contends that during June, 1995 for which duty had been demanded, a Trade Notice No 13/84 of the Commissioner was in force, according to which the process would not be a process of manufacture. This trade notice was replaced by a later trade notice holding the process to be manufacture only in August, 1997. Therefore no duty is payable.3. The departmental representative says that according to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court, the Commissioner was bound by the Circular of the Board holding the process to be manufacture.4. We have considered these submissions. We have also considered an opinion dated 4-8-1997 of the Silk & Art Silk Mills, Research Association (SASMIRA for short) produced by t...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of Customs (P) Vs. Afrique Trade Links Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT512Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved before the Commissioner (Appeals) was the classification of "Holograms". His finding was that they were classifiable under Heading 4911.99 under the CTA. The Jurisdictional Commissioner filed an appeal challenging this finding claiming classification under Heading 4911.91. This was against the allegation in the show cause notice alleging classification under Heading 3919.90.The stay application was also filed which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 6-8-1996. The assessees then filed an application for early hearing which was dismissed for want of arguments. The stay application is once again filed by the department now, on the ground that the appropriate classification is under 3919.90 citing a Circular of the Ministry bearing No. 35/96 dated 21-6-1996.2. We find this strange manner of conducting appeals where the prayer in stay application seeks a different classification than in the prayer made in appeal. Appeal memorandum is still not amended....
Tag this Judgment!Binnie and Partners (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2000
Reported in: (2006)STR136
2. I have read the written submission and also heard the departmental representative.3. The penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the applicant on the ground that it did not file the quarterly return prescribed.4. The contention in the written submission is that the applicant had no infrastructure in India and used the facilities of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of which it was a consultant; the fluctuations of exchange rate results in a variation of the quantum of service tax payable. The Tribunal's unreported decision in Ashwani & Associates v.CC (Stay Order No. 137/98-D, dated 7-12-1998 in appeal ST/3/98 is cited.5. The departmental representative reiterates the reasoning in the impugned order.6. The facts of the present case are somewhat different from those dealt with in the Tribunal's order and it is not possible to say at this stage that the circumstances which guided the Tribunal are similar. Taking all these aspects into account, I direct the applicant to deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Sai Shant Die Casting Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT169Tri(Mum.)bai
This is party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 12-6-1995 praying for setting aside the same, and for such other relief deemed fit.1. The brief facts of the case are that appellant, SSI unit, manufactures aluminium die cast articles falling under chapter sub-heading 8503.00 of Tariff Act, using aluminium alloy as input, availing deemed Modvat credit and have filed necessary declaration and complied the required procedure under Modvat Scheme. Deemed Modvat credit is available to appellant persuant to Government of India order No. 342/1/88-TRU dated 12-7-1990. Superintendent, Central Excise, Ponda range issued show cause notice dated 11-3-1991 for the period 1-9-1990 to 31-12-1990, and dated 26-7-1991 for the period February to April, 1991 alleging that appellant availed deemed Modvat of Rs. 2,44,163/- on 26007.43 kgs. and of Rs. 2,39,307.24 on 2467.85 kgs. of input, alleging contra-vention of Central Excise Rules, and for penal provision invocation and disallowi...
Tag this Judgment!CamlIn Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT178Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Some lead pencils have rubber erasers mounted thereupon with the help of aluminium fastener called "ferrule" which is a short hollow tube joining the eraser with the body of the lead pencils. The dispute in these proceedings is of their classification. The Revenue insisted that it is appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 7616.90 whereas the assessees claim it to be a part of pencils classifiable under subheading 9609.00.2. We have heard Shri M.H. Patii for the appellants and Shri K.L.Ramteke for the Revenue.3. Heading 76.16 covers other articles of aluminium. This chapter falls under Section XV of the Tariff. Note 1(m) excludes from the purview of this section pencil holders, pen nibs and other articles of chapter 96.Heading 9609 covers pencils but does not specifically refer to parts thereof. The preceding heading 9608 which covers pens, however, specifically refers to parts as falling under that heading. Note 1(d) to chapter 96 excludes from its coverage parts of general u...
Tag this Judgment!Highland Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT502Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals have been filed by the above appellants against the order No. 31/MP/94 dated 29-1-1994 of Central Excise and Customs, Surat praying of setting aside the same both on grounds of limitation and merits with the consequential relief and other relief as deemed fit.2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of internal audit of Highland Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. (Highland for short), Bombay it was noticed that the said unit had internal relation both administrative and financial with M/s. Epsilon Inds. (Epsilon for short), Vapi, Syntho Organics Pvt. Ltd. (Syntho for short), Vapi, Highland, Vapi and Gujarat Indl. Chemicals, Vapi. Simultaneously search and seizure operations were carried out in the premises of the unit at Bombay of Epsilon and Highland. On 22-10-1990 number of incriminating documents were seized under the panchnama. On the scrutiny of the said records, documents, and subsequent investigation disclose that the above said units had suppressed the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pic (Guj.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, against the single order dated 20-7-1999 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara. The Commissioner had also filed applications for stay of the operation of this order. On 10-2-2000 when these applications were taken up for hearing, the bench made the following observations : "These three appeals and applications filed by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad were heard by us. We noted the following defects: "Whereas the EA3 Form has been signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner, the grounds of appeal have been signed by the Commissioner. The grounds are not verified. Signatures of the Commissioner on the grounds of appeal as well as on the authorisation under section 35B(2) are photostat format." 2. Registry to issue a notice under rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules cautioning the appellants that the failure to do so will result in the dismissal of their appeal. Adjourned." 2. Due not...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Cranes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the matter came up for hearing, the main appeal itself has been taken up for decision after waiving deposit and with the consent of both sides.2. This is an appeal filed by the assessees who manufacture cranes and material handling equipments. They were availing of Modvat credit. They filed declarations under rule 57G. By a show cause notice dated 18-3-1991 they were charged for violating Modvat provisions and denied Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 95,491.41 on the ground that the classification of inputs declared by them and the inputs in GP1's were not tallied and certificates were not tallied. Consequently credit on welding electrodes was also sought to be denied. In the annexure to the show cause notice the nature of the discrepancies has been indicated as sub-heading number in the declaration and the GPl's were not tallied.The Assistant Collector in the order-in-original has held that the discrepancies show in most of the cases. Description of the inputs has not been sta...
Tag this Judgment!Litaka Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 11 appeals have been filed against the decision of the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise, Mumbai made in Order-in-Original No. 13/99 dated 2-6-1999. In the above order, the Commissioner has confirmed a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 7,04,97,618/- from the appellant in Appeal No. 3092/99. He also imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise rules. He further ordered recovery of interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Act. He confiscated the properties belonging to the appellant but permitted its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Of two of the directors of the appellant namely Shri A R Bora and Shri A K Dokha, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- each. By the impugned order, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the appellant Pfizer Ltd. under Rule 209A of the said Rules. He also imposed penalties of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the appellant's officials namely Shri P R Lyd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »