Mumbai Court May 2000 Judgments
Shreeji Packaging Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT601Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Although the stay application has been listed today, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellant filed a classification list with the Jurisdictional Central Excise authority effective from 1-9-1992 classifying the high density poly ethylene woven sacks manufactured by it under heading 3923.90 of the Tariff. It is not in dispute that the classification list was approved in due course. It therefore covered the clearances from the date on which it was effective. The appellant cleared on 21st and 22nd September, 1992 some quantities of these woven sacks. The duty paid on these goods before their clearance was not the duty applicable under heading 3923.90, but the lower rate of duty applicable to tariff heading 6301.00. Notice dated 28-8-1997 issued to the applicant proposed to recover the difference between the duty paid and the duty payable on the goods in accordance with the classification list filed The notice sought to invoke the exten...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT716Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals), has partly accepting the claim made by the assessee, remanded for reconsideration, the claim for Modvat credit on compressor and other parts of air conditioning plant, weighing machine, electrical transformer, and other parts. This is being challenged in this appeal.2. The Assistant Commissioner had denied the claim on the ground that the goods were not used for producing or processing any goods or bringing about any change in any substance. This is the reasoning cited in the appeal, which the departmental representative reiterates. He also cites the decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Madras v. Fourts Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. -1997 (92) E.L.T. 231. That decision, which relies on the earlier decision in CCE v. Sharmugaraja Spinning Mills Ltd. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84 (Tri.) to come to its conclusion that air conditioners used to regulate temperature and humidity in a factory manufacturing pharmaceutical products are not capital goo...
Tag this Judgment!Balvant Hastimal Ranavat Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT511Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are against the order of the Collector imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act and under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.3. The Collector found that two persons Parshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel and Harishkumar Parshottamdas Patel from whom gold of foreign mark was recovered, has stated that the appellant gave them 12 pieces of foreign mark gold, six each on 2nd and 3rd of March, 1989. It is primarily on this basis that he has found the appellant liable to penalty. The arguments on behalf of the appellant are these: He was not in Ahmedabad on the 2nd and 3rd of March, 1989 and therefore could not have given gold to these persons who are residing there at that time. He was away at his hometown at Rajasthan and returned only in July 1989 that he had explained to the officers his innocence in the matter. The failure to establish that he was in Ahmedabad disproves the department's case.Statement of Parshottamdas Patel and Harish...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Patel Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)78ITD51(Mum.)
1. The assesses, an individual, is carrying on business of construction activities, in his own name and in the names of various partnership firms, where he is a partner. He has also dividend income, interest income, salaries from Private Limited Companies and Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer has pointed out in para 6 of his order that the assessee's construction activities are mainly in Mira Road and Bhayender. It has also been pointed out that the assessee also indulges in advancing loans to various builders and others on a heavy interest.The Assessing Officer has also stated that the seized books indicate that the assessee was receiving huge cash premium in selling flats which is re-invested either in purchase of flats or in giving advances to various parties on interest. The Assessing Officer has also pointed out that the assessee admitted in his statement recorded under section 131 that he is advancing cash loans. The assessee has also admitted in answer to question No. 2, whe...
Tag this Judgment!Unique Manufacturers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2000
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT700Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Unique Manufacturers, at the relevant time a manufacturer of domestic floor mills. The question for consideration in these appeals are whether, during the period from 23-12-1988 to 11-7-1991, it was entitled to avail of the benefit of exemption under Notification 175/86. The benefit has been denied in the order of the Collector, impugned before us on the ground that the floor mills in question bore on them the brand name "Trimurti" which did not belong to it. The Collector found that the brand name belonged to Trimurti Manufacturers.2. It was the contention of the Advocate for the appellant that the brand name 'Trimurti' originally belonged to Trimurti Manufacturers and was assigned to Unique Engineers, the appellant in appeal E/4261/95. It was explained that by mistake the appellant's name has been shown as Unique Manufacturers. This is clear from the fact that the orders itself refers to the assessee as Unique Engineers, the appeal before us is verified by the partner of Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Shree Vaishno Acrylic Plastic
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT796Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector declining to confiscate the goods imported by the respondent.2. We have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. The goods imported were declared to be plastic scrap/PVC tubing scarp. Examination of the goods showed the presence of considerable extent of acrylic plastic scrap which we are told is of a higher value.The Collector has, in fact, ordered that the value to be determined on the basis that nine packages contained 70% acrylic scrap and the remaining 30% contained PVC scrap. In that situation, it is difficult to accept the finding of the Collector that there was no intention to misdeclare that the goods were not liable to confiscation. The reasoning in support of this view of his is that manufacturers of the product do not segregated difference kinds of scrap but "dump it" on importers head. As against this, the importer had himself stated that he was a manufacturer of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC672Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the department is against the order of the Collector of Customs, ordering confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act, the goods imported by the appellant, and imposing a penalty on it under Clause (a) of Section 112 and exhonerating M/s. National Transport Company, the Custom House Agent of the charges levelled against him.2. There is only one appeal, and the respondent in it is shown to be M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd, the importer. In the absence of another appeal or even of M/s. National Transport Company being shown as the respondent, we are treating this appeal to be a single appeal directed against M/s. Garden Silk Mills. We therefore do not propose to consider the grounds of appeal relating to the transport company against whom, we are told that no other appeal has been filed.3. The Tribunal had already disposed of on 6-11-1998 an appeal C/176/94 filed by M/s. Garden Silk Mills against the same order. At that time, it was not brought to the notice o...
Tag this Judgment!Techno Craft Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC808
2. M/s. Eskidee Metal Craft Pvt. Ltd. were SSI unit eligible to the benefit of notification 1/93 dated 28-2-1993. This unit filed an amalgamation application with the company called Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd. who were not eligible for such benefit. The order of the High Court dated 19-1-1994 approving this amalgamation stipulated 1st April, 1993 as the Transfer Date. The order specified that this Transfer Date would be effective on the last of the dates on which the consents etc. were received. The two relevant portions of this order read as under: "THIS COURT DOTH HEREBY SANCTION the Scheme of Amalgamation between ESKIDEE METAL CRAFTS PRIVATE LIMITED, the First Transferor Company with TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, the Transferee Company as set forth in Exhibit "C" to the said Petition and also in the schedule hereto AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER DECLARE that the same to be binding on the First Transferor Company, its members and on the Transferee Company and their me...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Ramdas Patel Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT361Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. A fax dated 16-4-2000 of Mr. R.S. Gajjar, advocate for the applicant requests his absence but says that his arguments in writing are sent herewith. The registry reports that no arguments have been received either by fax or by letter in the office. We have therefore read the application and heard the departmental representative.2. The contention that the advocate of the appellant is empowered to sign the miscellaneous application under the Customs (Appeals) Rules is not borne out on reading the rules. Rule 3(2) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 provides that the appeal shall be signed, in the case of individual by the individual himself. It only provides for the application to be signed by a person authorised by the individual if he is absent from India. It is not contended that the appellant was abroad. There is no contention that the appellant is a minor or mentally incapacitated. The question of the document being signed by the guardi...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash R. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT715Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application are for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on Prakash Jain and Rs. 1 lakh on Shantilal Jain 3. Penalties have been imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the finding of the Commissioner that some quantity of gold ornaments seized from Prakash Jain, a gold dealer, was of purity 999.0, it must be considered to be made out of foreign gold and hence smuggled. Prima facie these contentions are not acceptable. The fact that gold of 999.0 purity by itself does not establish that it is manufactured out of smuggled gold, in the absence of any evidence, and that gold with such purity cannot be obtained in India. Secondly it has been represented before us that import of gold by specified passengers has been permitted in September, 1992 and the ornaments which were seized in January, 1993 might have been made out of such legally imported gold.4. Taking these aspects into consideration we waive deposit of the penalty imposed and stay its recovery....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »