Mumbai Court August 2000 Judgments
Western India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC438
1. The appellants manufacture Glazed Tiles paying duty in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. Show cause notice dated 29-4-1993 made a number of allegations and alleged that on the various grounds enumerated therein, duty amounting to Rs. 38,94,376.69 had been short levied. It was separately alleged that the assessee had manufactured certain machinery for installation of the factory on which duty had not been paid. That duty amounting to Rs. 69,922.07 was also demanded. After hearing the assessees, the Commissioner passed orders confirming the demands and imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the assessee. He confiscated the plant building etc. but permitted the redemption on payment of Rs. 1 lakh. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.2. We have heard Shri J.C. Patel for the appellants and Shri U.V.Gaitonde for the revenue.3. The assessees cleared certain broken glazed tiles without payment of duty. Demand amounting to Rs. 6,02,099.58 is on that count. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pro-fashional Computers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT697Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two applications for stay when came up for hearing, it was felt that the appeals themselves could be disposed of as the question involved in these appeals lie in a narrow compass. This was done, with the consent of both the sides and after waiving pre-deposit.2. The appellants in their memoranda of appeals state that they are engaged mainly in the activities of maintenance of computer systems and also in the supply of duty paid computer systems, monitors, peripherals, accessories like printers, voltage stabilizers, various add-on cards, terminals etc. They stopped their activities with effect from 31-3-1997. The other appellant in Appeal No. 1505/2000/Mum is owned by the proprietor Manoj Gala also operating from the same premises and they were also carrying on the same type of activities mentioned above. The Department felt that the activities of the appellants would attract the provisions of the Central Excise Act and various Rules, which resulted in show cause notice issued...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT138Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to notification 128/94 of goods described as "Stud Tensioning Device" imported by the respondent. The Assistant Commissioner had denied the benefit of the notification. On appeal from this order the Collector (Appeals) found that it would be available. Hence this appeal by the department.2. It is common ground that the stud tensioning device is a machine which is used to ensure the required degree of tension on the studs which form part of the manhole cover of the pre-heater which is manufactured by the respondent. The notification exempts import of 'materials' used for manufacture of final products.3. 'Materials' is defined in the explanation to notification as follows : "(a) raw materials, components, intermediates, consumables, computer software and parts required for the manufacture of final goods; (b) packing materials required for the packing of final goods to be supplied;" 4. It is the contention in the departm...
Tag this Judgment!National Textile Corporation (Nm) Ltd. Vs. Shivaji Gopal Gorule and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR753; [2001(88)FLR602]; (2002)IVLLJ301Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. RespondentNo. 1 waives service. By consent, taken up forfinal hearing. The First Respondent who was working as a substitute since 1978 in the Weaving Department of the Petitioner, has succeeded in his plea for the declaration of permanency both before the Labour Court and in appeal before the Industrial Court in the proceedings instituted under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court held that upon completion of 240 days uninterrupted service in the preceding period of twelve months, the provisions of Standing Order 4(C) would mandate that the workman was entitled to permanency. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the First Respondent had completed 240 days uninterrupted service in the preceding period of twelve months as stipulated in Standing Order 4(C). The evidence before the Courts below demonstrated that there were, in fact, vacancies in which the First Respon...
Tag this Judgment!State Through the Public Prosecutor Vs. Datta Ramnath Naik (Shri)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR423
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the order dated 8th January 1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda, acquitting the respondent in Criminal Case No. 44/N/1992, which had been filed under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as said Act).2. The charge against the respondent/accused was that on 21st November 1991 at about 3.15 p.m. when the concerned Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent and when he collected the sample of groundnut oil, on analysis it turned out to be oil from cotton seeds. The respondent was, therefore, charged for misbranding the food item under the provisions of section 2(ix)(c) read with section 2(v)(a) of the said Act and was, accordingly prosecuted under section 16(a)(i) thereof.3. The appellant examined three witnesses, that is, the Food Inspector Rajiv Korde (P.W. 1), then, the Public Analyst (P.W. 2) and the panch witness (P.W. 3). As far as P.W. 3 is concer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Microtronics (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT579Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are against the same impugned order. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this single order.The show cause notice dated 10.06.1993 demanded differential duty amounting to Rs. 96,407/-. The Annexure to the show cause notice is reproduced below in toto: "M/s. Microtronics (I) Ltd., Pune having Registration No. 1006070357 are the manufacturers of goods namely "Microwave Oven" and parts thereof falling under Chapter sub-heading 8516.00 of GET A, 85. The assessee has declared prices in Part I and Part II of price list frequently as per the provisions of Sec. 4 of CESA, 1944. On going through the price lists and GPs, it is observed that the assessee has declared the prices in Part I to the customers other than the class of buyers namely govt, semi-govt. and individual consumers. The assessee is also not manufacturing the goods as per customers' specification/requirement. The assessee is supposed to sell the goods to said customers at Part I prices declared by them,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Gupta Silk Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT804Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal was filed on 30-3-2000. Scrutiny showed that the appeal memorandum was defective. Show cause notice was, therefore, sent for correction thereof with the caution that failure to correction would result in dismissal of the appeal. Today when the case was called out, we find that the compliance has not been reported.2. In similar circumstances, we have dismissed the department's appeals by making two observations - first was that the authority vested under Section 35B has to be used with circumspection and due application to the extent that even not mentioning of the words "not legal and proper" would result in dismissal of the appeal. Such dismissals have been upheld by the Supreme Court also. The second observation made by us was that in not paying attention to the basic requirement, the Collectors have shown utter negligence. Following regretfully our earlier decision, we dismiss the present appeal also....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Atul Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT66Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals E/1016 to 1019/2000-Mum. were filed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Surat-II on 31-3-2000. On 1-6-2000 a notice was sent directing the Commissioner to correct the defect mentioned in the notice, namely the appeal not having been verified in the proper manner. Yet another notice was sent on 13-7-2000. The Commissioner has not responded nor has he complied with the directions.2. Today when the cases were called out for compliance we find that the authorisation granted by the Commissioner under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not signed by him but in all cases a photostat copy thereof has been filed. The authorisation by a Commissioner is crucial to the filing of the appeal. Where the authorisation is found to be defective the appeals have been dismissed.Thus in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 5 the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that absence of certain key words in the body of the authorisa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Varma and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Tribunal vide order No. 3799/98/WRB dated 8-10-1998 C.I allowed the appeal filed by the CHA and remanded the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Commissioner. Vide the order impugned before the Tribunal, the Commissioner had suspended the licence of the CHA in terms of Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984. In this order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal examined a number of judgments in view of the fact that there was no specific requirement for the Commissioner to issue a notice before taking such action under Regulation 21(2). The Tribunal, however, observed that this Regulation did not waive the application of Regulation 23. The Tribunal also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.)]. In this judgment, it is laid down that even if the statute did not provide for a show cause notice, it was incumbent upon the quasi judicial authority to disclose the grounds on which the action was prop...
Tag this Judgment!ipcl Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC434
1. When the application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 56,79,62,795 was argued by Shri V. Sridharan, it appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be taken up for disposal.Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.2. The appellants use Raw Naphtha as the main raw material. Thermal cracking of such Naphtha results in several products, one of which is pyrolysis gasoline. This product is further used in the manufacture of other products. The appellants had filed classification list for such intermediate product pyrolysis gasoline from time to time. They had claimed classification under sub-heading 2707.90, and later under 2710.19. During this period the assessee had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 28/89-CE as amended and later of Notification No.217/86-CE as amended which notifications permitted duty free consumption of certain substances in the manufacture of resultant products. With effect from 16...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »