Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments
Patodia Syntex Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT258Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for early hearing of the appeal before us.The main ground of appeal is the appellants status as Golden Trading House may be in jeopardy because the proceedings have been initiated by DGFT authorities. Out of the total five draw back shipping bills have been converted into advance licence. The learned advocate Shri M.H.Patil pleads before us that once the status of Golden Trading House is changed it will cause irreparable loss to the applicant. We have considered this request. We are of the view that the applicant can inform the DGFT authorities about the pendency of appeals before this Tribunal. This Tribunal is an independent body and once a request is made to the DGFT authorities they have to consider the request on merits, who will consider their request for postponement of the matter.We therefore feel that no case has been made out for the out of turn hearing in this matter. Application stands dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Nrc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT128Tri(Mum.)bai
1. NRC Ltd. has sought for the dispensation of the payment of duty as condition precedent for hearing its appeal and for the stay of the recovery, by the department of the amount confirmed in the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III dated 26-10-99 i.e. Rs. 2,14,139/- of the Modvat credit disallowed and penalty of Rs. 2,000/- by initiating the recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal.2. The grounds on which the relief sought for is that the applicants manufacture rayon nylon yarn and various chemicals by utilising the various inputs considered in the orders of the lower authorities on which they have availed the Modvat credit, which are capital goods.There was a confusion throughout in that regard both in the department and the industry, which are now made clear by the various Tribunal decision regarding the allowing of the Modvat credit under Rule 57Q irrespective of the chapter headings. The instant items are very much connected with the integrated manu...
Tag this Judgment!Boston Scientific International Vs. Commr. of Cus., Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT250Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the importer against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. Vide the said order the Commissioner has come to a finding as given below :- "6 pieces of Cardiac Catheters covered under Bill of Entry No. 5313 dated 15-3-2000 valued at Rs. 27,00,217/- confiscated under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option in Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the importers to redeem the same on fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) and imposed penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) on the Importers under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962." 2. From the order we find that a certificate of Dr. A.B. Mehta, Director of Cardialogy, Jaslok Hospital and President of Cardiology Society of India stating that the subject item was an accessory, has not been discussed in the findings and the Commissioner has relied upon the examination report of the Customs Shed Staff. The Customs Shed Staff are not techni...
Tag this Judgment!Jai International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (G) suspending the C.H.A. licence purportedly in terms of Regulation 2 of Regulation 21 of Custom House Licencing Regulation 1984 without any hearing.2. The appellants are a firm of Custom House Agents holding regular licence No. 11/926. The firm is owned by one Ashok Jaiswar. It is stated to be carrying on business of CHA since 1989 and is stated to be attending to the clearance of import and export consignments. The volume of duty paid on the import consignments cleared by the appellants for the years 1997,1998 and 1999 respectively is to the tune of Rs. 13.65 crores; Rs. 19.93 crores and Rs. 17.60 crores. The appellant is having 22 employees working under him.3. It is stated by the appellant that during the year November, 1996 to Feb. 1997, the appellant attended to clearance of export consignments made by M/s. Unique Impex, M/s. Global Art, M/s. Golden Exports, M/s.Seven Seas Exports and M/...
Tag this Judgment!Ashik Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT219Tri(Mum.)bai
The appeal is filed by the appellant, against the above cap-tioned impugned order dated 31-1-94 of the Respondent praying for setting aside the same.1. The Brief facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures Woollen Yarn, Terry Viscose Yarn falling under chapter heading Nos. 51 and 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act on 26-11-91. Preventive Officers of HQS Central Excise visited the factory of appellant and physically verified in the presence of Panchas, Excise Clerk of factory B.J.Patel, the stock of Excisable Yarns and found stocks of 3478.900 kgs.of Terry Viscose Yarn as against the recorded balance of 7202.450 kgs.shortage of 3723.550 kgs. of that yarn was accepted by the above clerk in his deposition that it was carried over since long and cannot explain shortage of 3723.55 kgs. Terry Viscose Yarn valued at Rs. 558532.50, involving Excise duty of Rs. 37235.00 in all. Shri R.B.Shah, Managing Director confirmed it in his statement dated 17-12-91 as recorded in the Panchanama da...
Tag this Judgment!Ntb International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT134Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these six applications for stay are filed against the Order-in-Original No. 16/99 Commr. Dated 7-7-1999 where under the Commissioner, Mumbai-VI confirmed duty amount of Rs. 42,07,807/-, imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Rules 173Q, 209, 9(2) and 52A of the Rules and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellant in Appeal No. E/2934 namely Transcon International as well as Polybelt Technologies in Appeal No. E/2933. He ordered recovery of interest under Section 11AB. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellant Kamal K. Kacholia in appeal No. E/2935 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellant Rajan Nawal in appeal No. E/2955 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on the appellant Nirmaljeet Singh Panna in appeal E/3498 under rule 209A.He also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Today applications for stay are filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. During the course of the argument it was found that the appeals themselves could be disposed of on a short point and the matter...
Tag this Judgment!isibars Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT253Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of duty of Rs. 1,51,320/- and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- demanded and imposed on the ground that the programmable logic controller, which, according to the applicant is a component of the reheating furnace in its factory, is not capital goods for the reason that it is not a component part and it is not specified as a capital goods in rule 57Q. The interpretation given by the Commissioner (Appeals) that this would result in entry number 5 being rendered redundant is meaningless.2. The applicant had specifically contended before the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) that the programmable logic controller was component of furnace required for controlling the temperature. Without rebuting this contention it is not permissible to say that it is not a component part. Clause (v) of the table below rule 57Q(1) defined capital goods as including components, spares and accessories of the goods specified in entries at serial number 1 to 4.It is not...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Mansingka Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)78ITD163(Mum.)
1. This assessee's appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 1977-78 and raises the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the learned CIT (Appeals) on the facts and circumstances of the case and law erred in confirming the re-opening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. 2. That no perquisites should have been taxed. Without prejudice to this, if any value of perquisite is to be taxed, then too, no addition at least in respect of the salaries paid to chowkidar and for milk consumption for Rs. 22,000 should have been made because in those days, the assessee being mostly living at Bombay, no ckowkidars services were available and availed at Bhilwara residence and moreover in those days, there was no cattle as would be clear from the published Balance Sheet of the Company as at 31st October, 1976." 2. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed an application under rule 11 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and sought to raise the follow...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Hi-fi Sound Corporation Vs. M/S. Vinsons, a Firm and Court Receive ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)2BOMLR443; 2001(2)MhLj270
R. M. S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The points for consideration which arise in the present petition are whether the institution of a suit for eviction of a tenant in respect of the premises which is in custody of the Court Receiver would be ab initio bad in the absence of leave being obtained prior to the institution of the suit and whether such a leave can be obtained after the disposal of the suit?2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that, the respondent No. 1 landlord issued a demand notice on 22nd August, 1983 in respect of certain arrears of rent and sought to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises, which comprises of 1 /5 Banaji Street, Fort, Mumbai. In reply to the said notice, the petitioner requested the respondent not to take any action on the ground of certain financial difficulties having been faced by the petitioner at the relevant time. However, the respondent No. 1 instituted a suit against the petitioner for the possession of the...
Tag this Judgment!Yashodadevi Mundra and Another Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom383; 2000(4)ALLMR780; 2000(4)BomCR404; 2000(4)MhLj349
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 2nd August, 1993 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 2540 of 1989 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition.2. The petition was filed on the basis that the petitioners should get the benefit of section 175 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. That provision relates to refund of property tax paid on the basis of it being vacant.3. It is an accepted position that the plot in question was in the process of being developed by putting up construction for building. On and after commencement of that work on or about 1-4-1984 the rateable value was revised and increased, which on representation came to be reduced. In the petition it is referred to as Rs. 1,79,750/- while before the learned Single Judge as noted in paragraph 5 of the Order, the agreed position accepted by both the sides is that the reduced value was Rs. 2,80,110/-. The original assessment was fixed at Rs. 3,88,385/-.4. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »