Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments
Jupiter Exports Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Genl.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai
Jupiter Exports, Mumbai applied for and obtained 12 advance licences and DEEC books. These documents conferred upon it the right to import polyester filament yarn, dyes and bronze powder, subject to these being utilised in the manufacture of polyester filament, the specified quantity of which were to be exported, or as replenishment used to make the exported product. Jupiter Exports, one of the appellants before us, manipulated documents such as test reports and invoices to show that it had exported fabrics of weight and length considerably greater than what actually was exported. In accordance with the provisions of the Policy, where the export obligation has been fulfilled, the import licence can be transferred. These licences were utilised by various persons to import the goods specified therein without payment of duty in terms of Notification 204/92. On their importation, the importers claimed, and were granted the benefit of exemption.2. Investigations made by the department subs...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Hakim Hardware and General Stores
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT650Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have carefully examined the impugned order, the grounds of appeal and connected records. We have also heard learned JDR, Shri J.M.George, for the appellant-Revenue. The respondents are not represented in spite of notice. This is an old matter and, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this case finally.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had imported 8000 pairs of M-locks and claimed clearance thereof by filing bill of entry on 20-9-1995. The declared invoice price was US $ 0.525 per pair.The Customs authorities suspected that the declared price was very low when compared to local market price. Therefore, they conducted market enquiry. They also gathered information from the Directorate of Intelligence regarding the actual price of the impugned goods. The department sought to load the value of the imported goods on the basis of the DRI information. Since show cause notice was waived by the importer, the matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Iron Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT629Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After careful examination of the records and hearing both sides, we find that this is a fit case to be disposed of finally at this stage.We, therefore, allow the present stay application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.2. The jurisdictional Additional Commissioner had confirmed a demand of over rupees ten lakhs against the appellants and imposed a penalty of equal amount on them.3.Against this order, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). They also filed a stay application with the lower appellate authority for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), without giving personal hearing to the party, passed "stay order" dated 30-6-2000 directing them to deposit an amount of Rs. 535,000/- by 30th July, 2000 for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Upon receipt of the said order, the party submitted an application for reco...
Tag this Judgment!Govindsons Flashlight Indus. (P) Vs. C.C.E. and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT646Tri(Mum.)bai
1.The basic issue involved in this appeal is whether the cost of packing for the appellants' product, namely torches cleared during the period April to June, 1994 was includible in the assessable value of the product for the purpose of discharging duty liability. Both the lower authorities decided the issue against the assessees. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ponds (I) Ltd., 1989 (44) E.L.T. 185 and in the case of MRF Ltd. 1995 {77) E.L.T. 433. Both the decisions of the Apex Court are to the effect that when the packing is necessary for delivery of the goods in wholesale at the factory gate, the cost of such packing is includible in the assessable value of the packed products. The appellants before us have claimed that the packing for torches manufactured and cleared by them was only secondary in nature and was not essential for making the torches marketable in wholesale trade. The case of the Revenue, as now made out before us by...
Tag this Judgment!Shatex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT648Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 6,31,20,312.50 confirmed as duty in the impugned order and Rs. 20 lakhs imposed as penalty on the appellants.2. The appellants imported goods under the DEEC Scheme and exported polyester fabrics. Show cause notice dated 20-10-1998 was issued alleging mat in the manufacture of export products the appellants had utilised the facility of Modvat credit and as such the conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. were violated. The resultant demand as aforesaid was made. The show cause notice however, did not make available any evidence leading the Custom to presume that the importers had taken Modvat credit. The importers entered into a correspondence with the adjudicating Commissioner. In their reply they claimed that since no duty was leviable on their end-product there was no question of the availment of Modvat credit. The certificate from the jur...
Tag this Judgment!Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT292Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported filter cartridge falling under Chapter 59 of the Customs Tariff. They filed bill of entry No. 6222, dated 21-12-1992 for the clearance of these cartridges at the Bombay Port. In the bill of entry filed by the appellants, they claimed the exemption under Notification 173/92-Cus., dated 30-4-1992 which exempted the imported goods from so much of the duty of customs or in excess of 55% ad valorem. The goods were duly assessed by the Customs authorities and the same were cleared on payment of the basic duty of customs at the rate as prescribed under this notification. Subsequently on 29-6-1993 the importers filed a refund claim with the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), New Custom House, Mumbai, claiming a refund of Rs. 1,31,255/- on the ground that at the relevant time the basic duty under the tariff on the imported goods were at the rate of 40% and since the duty prescribed in the exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act can nev...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dcl Polyester Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT290Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These four appeals have been filed against the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, made in Orders-in-Appeal made on 18-5-1998. He has granted relief to the respondent assessees in respect of trade discount. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that as against depot price the factory gate price which are available in these cases have to be accepted as the price which is relevant for purpose of valuation under the Central Excise Act.2. The assessee respondents manufactured polyester filament yarn. They filed various price lists claiming abatement in respect of freight, octroi, insurance, sales tax, trade discount etc. They sold goods both at factory gate as well as at their depot. A show cause notice dated 27-5-1997 was issued whereunder the department sought to claim short duty of Rs. 1,65,39,278/- and Rs. 1,79,409/- on polyester filament yarn cleared to different depots by them during July, 1995 to September, 1995. The points for our decision was as to the acceptan...
Tag this Judgment!Chowgule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade, Go ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(139)ELT30(Bom)
Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners in this petition have challenged the Order dated 12th January, 1986 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.2. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act having their office at Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa. They are engaged in export of processed iron ore and are a recognised Trading House.3. The petitioner filed an application for issue of additional licence for the licensing year AM 92 based on the export made during the preceding year AM 91 in respect of an item appearing in Appendix 12 of the Policy during AM 91. The export being processed iron ore. The claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they were not entitled for the licence in question. The petitioners preferred second appeal but the same was also rejected on the ground that application for additional licence was time barred, the same having been filed aft...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaamba Investments Ltd. Vs. Idi Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: [2001]105CompCas16(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The only question which arises at the present stage is as regards the office objection that no petition has been filed by the transferee-company. In the company petition, the petitioner which is a transferor-company is sought to be amalgamated with IDI Limited, which is the transferee-company. The transferee is the holding company of the transferor which is thus its 100 per cent, subsidiary. Clause 10 of the proposed scheme of amalgamation postulates that since the entire share capital of the transferor is held by the transferee, upon the scheme becoming finally effective, the said share capital of the transferor will stand automatically cancelled and no shares will be allotted of the transferee-company to the shareholders of the transferor-company. That is because the transferee-company holds 100 per cent, of the share capital of the transferor-company.2. The question which arises on the office objection is covered by a decision of a learned single judge of this...
Tag this Judgment!Satchit Pandurang Poll Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR468
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rivonkar, the Additional Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.2. The writ petition is filed challenging the method of direct recruitment for appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector in the Directorate of Health Services undertaken by the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the promotions made in favour of respondents 3 to 6.3. The short question which falls for our consideration in the present writ petition is whether the recruitment and appointment sought to be done by the method of direct recruitment without considering the candidate/petitioner of the Department was permissible in law?4. The petitioner has been working as a Vaccinator in the Department of Directorate of Health Services of the respondent No. 1 pursuant to his appointment order dated 17th October, 1980 by the Director of Health Services. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously working with the Directorate of Health Servi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »