Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Kamal Castings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the HSN Explanatory Notes under Chapter 73 that forging, stamping and other processes of removal of burrs, run outs etc. would not bring the operations under the mischief of 'further worked upon' of castings, mouldings, stamping or forging for products of Chapter 7419.91 to merit their classification under Chapter 7419.99 when such processes are carried out as per the request of the customers. (a) that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the product for example rings, bushes, and parts of machinery made out of copper would be classifiable under chapter heading 7419.91 and would be eligible for Notification 178/88 as he has not appreciated that the assessees have carried out various operations after casting of copper and copper alloys manufactured by them and that the Tariff Heading 7419.91 covers moulded, stamped ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Enercon (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT788Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of the bridge crane imported by the importer for the benefit of Notification 123/87. The notification exempts machinery falling within Chapter 84 or 85 of the tariff when imported for the manuracture or instruments, appliances, or equipments which function witn the aid of non-conventional form of energy from part of the basic duty and of all the additional duty of customs. It contains a condition that the importer produces a certificate from an officer not below the officer of Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Energy (Department of Non Conventional Energy Resources) of the Government of India that the machine is required for the aforesaid purpose. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs took the view that the goods were nothing other than material handling machinery, and were not directly required for the manufacture of wind operated electricity generator. He therefore denied the benefit of the notification.2. On appe...
Tag this Judgment!NavIn Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT198Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant at the relevant time manufactured heat exchangers and claimed the benefit of exemption contained in entry 8 of the Table to Notification 51/93. This exempts all goods classifiable under chapter heading 84.19 of the Tariff other than machinery, plant, and laboratory equipment for the treatment of materials by condensing or cooling. The benefit of the notification was sought to be denied on the ground that the heat exchangers was a machinery for the treatment of materials by cooling. The show cause notice issued in this regard is confirmed by the Asstt. Collector.2. The assessee appealed this order. The Collector (Appeals) found that by issue of Notification 83/93 on 23-4-93 machinery, plant or laboratory equipment for the treatment of material by condensing or cooling which was excluded by Notification 51/93, was exempted from duty beyond 15% ad valorem. He also found the Notification 34/94 dated 4-8-94 issued under Section 11C of the Act provided that no duty beyond 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT251Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal, filed a claim for refund of the Customs duty paid on coal tar pitch imported by it. The basis for the claim was that the goods were classifiable under heading 2708.11 of the tariff and not under heading 2708.19 under which had been assessed. The Assistant Collector held the classification decided by the department to be correct and dismissed the claim for refund. On appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) held that the goods were shown to be classifiable under heading 2708.11, and ordered payment of refund. This is being challenged by the department's appeal.2. Heading 2708 is for pitch and pitch coke, obtained from coal tar or from other mineral tars. Sub-heading 11 is for pitch obtained by blending with creosote oil or other coal tar distillates. Sub-heading 19 is for other. Therefore, for the goods to be classified under sub-heading 11, they must have been "obtained" by blending with creosote oil or other coal tar distillates.3. The Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hameed Manjur Ahmed Shaikh and anr. Vs. S.C. Fulambrikar @ Phula ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)2BOMLR987
A. B. Palkar, J.1. Appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 25 read with section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Appellants are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh each and in default to undergo R.I. for one year. Prosecution case in brief is as follows :2. S.C. Phulambrikar, Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs Preventive Department, was attached to the Pune Division and Inspectors Tonape and Krishnamurthy were under him. On 12.4.1994 at about 4.00 p.m. Inspectors Tonape and Krishnamurthy were in the office. Information was received that one Ashok Leyland truck bearing registration No. ABT 2893 was to pass by National Highway No. 9 carrying 500 kgs. of Ganja. The truck was to arrive at Hadapsar between 6.30p.m. and 10.00 p.m. One Anil kumar, proprietor of M/s. Anil Kirana Stores of Varangal, Tahsil Basavkalyan, Dist. Bidar had loaded Ganja in the truck from Andhra Pradesh for being sent to Pune. This in...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Scientific Glass Works Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT498Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This batch of six appeals has a common factor and that is the classification of laboratory glassware. All these appeals are therefore taken up together for disposal vide this common order.2. We have heard Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate for Pioneer Scientific Glass Works, Super Scientific Glass Inds. and Super Scientific Works P.Ltd. We have heard Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for Smriti Scientific & Co., Garg Lab. Glass Industries and Sunil Garg, partner of the two firms. We have heard Smt. Reena Arya for the revenue.3. Although the facts involved are identical, we would take individual cases for disposal. (1) The appellants filed declarations in terms of Rule 174(2) and the notification issued thereunder, during the period April, 1991 to April, 1995 claiming exemption from licensing control on the ground that the product manufactured by them was exempt from payment of duty. The fact of filing of these declarations is acknowledged by the Commissioner in the impugned order. In each ...
Tag this Judgment!Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactured certain goods on job work basis. The price-lists filed by them were approved by the Superintendent on addition of profit margin. Before the Collector (Appeals) the assessees made the claim that the normal profits stood included in the quotation made for job charges and therefore there was no need for addition of any quantum on account of notional profits. The Collector (Appeals) analysed the Supreme Court's finding in the case of Ujagar Prints v.UO1. He recalled the phrase "manufacturing profits" used by the Supreme Court and felt that a broader meaning should be given to this term.According to him the profit is what the appellant would have earned if they had invested their own money for purchase of raw materials for consequent manufacture. The total expenditure minus the price at which they would have sold the product would amount to that profit which would satisfy the requirement of the phrase used by the Supreme Court.To determine this he sent the iss...
Tag this Judgment!National Wire and Metal Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT810Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants purchased a consignment of copper wire bars, which was sold to it on the high seas by the importer, Rupam Holding Pvt.Ltd. (Rupam for short). The price of these goods in the invoice issued to the latter by the foreign supplier was US $ 49068.65 CIF. The assessable value based on this price works out to Rs. 15,79,412/-. The appellant, in the bill of entry filed by it, claimed the assessable value to be Rs. 14,58,600/-. The explanation for the lower price was that the initial importer had sold these goods in distress in view of a subsequent fall in international price.2. The department declined to accept the price declared and the argument in support. The Asst. Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), held that it is the price at which the Rupam purchased that should form base of the assessable value. Hence this appeal.3. The question of determination of value of goods on the high seas was the subject matter of the decision of the Larger Be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dcl Polyesters Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT911Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals from the revenue have similar facts and are therefore taken up together. Shri B.K. Choubey, JDR appeared for the revenue and the respondents were represented by Shri V.S. Nankani, Advocate. (1) Notification 85/95-C.E. dated 18.05.1995 exempts waste of man-made stable fibres and man-made filament yarn provided the assessees factory producing such fibres or yarn of organic polymers did not undertake the manufacturing process of polymerization or organic polymers. The respondents sought to avail of the benefit of the notification. They also produced a certificate from a technical institute to the effect that the assessee did not use the prohibited process. The Assistant Collector narrated the process. He examined the claim that the materials namely MEG and PTA were not organic polymers and therefore the prohibition did not apply. The Assistant Commissioner gave a much wider interpretation to the term "polymer" and included PTA and MEG in the extended definition in ho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (Prev) Vs. Rauf Exports and Khawaza Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC155
1. The respondents to these appeals each imported a consignment of used tyres which it declared as scrap. Notices were issued proposing confiscation of the tyres on the ground that they were not scrap, proposing enhancement of value and imposition of penalty on the importers. Additional Collector passed an order on each consignments enhancing the value, ordering confiscation of the goods under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 and imposing penalties. These orders were appealed by both the department as well as the assessees. The department sought enhancement of the fine and penalty. The importers questioned the enhancement of the value, confiscation and imposition of penalty. In a common order the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the department's appeal and partially allowed the appeal of the importers, reducing the redemption fine and penalty to half of the amounts determined by the Additional Collector. Hence this appeal by the department.3. The departmental representative's reliance ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »