Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Electro Services Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT716Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in these four appeals by the Commissioner is the classification of "power controllers" manufactured by each of the four respondents to these appeals. Each of them had, prior to July, 1990, classified the product under heading 84.43 of the tariff. Each of them claimed from 25-7-1991 onwards classification of the product under heading 8536.90 This classification was not accepted.Notices were issued proposing to deny it, to confirm the classification earlier claimed and approved. The notices also proposed recovery of duty short paid, caused by the difference between the duty payable under each of the two headings. The Assistant Colector confirmed the classification of the goods under heading 8543, and consequent liability to duty. On appeal filed by the manufacturer against this order the Collector (Appeals) accepted the classification claimed by the manufacturers. Hence these appeals by the department."85.36 - Electrical apparatus for switching o...
Workwell Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC215
1. This application prays for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,01,796.50, the demand whereof as raised in the Department's show-cause notice was upheld by the lower Appellate authority, which has set aside the orders of the Asstt. Commissioner, whose decision on such demand was in favour of the assessees on the basis of classification of the product in question under Chapter Heading 84.37 with effect from 5.12.94.2. We have carefully examined the grounds of the stay application and connected records and have heard Ld. Consultant Shri K.A. Sindhi for the applicants and Ld. JDR Shri J.M. George for the Revenue.3. Ld. Consultant submits that the Tribunal had, in the applicants' own cases, decided in favour of the Revenue upholding classification of the same product under Chapter Heading 85.09 of the Central Excise Tariff.There were two such decisions of the Tribunal. The earlier one among them was taken in appeal by the party before the Supreme Court, but the Apex Co...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC213
1. This appeal is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the order of Assistant Collector proposing the classification list for parts of air-conditioners for evaporators and condensers for motor cars under 8415.00 as parts of Car-Air Conditioners, which wore claimed under 8419.00 by the appellants.2. Heard both sides, and after considering the material and the submissions, we find :- (a) The appellants had filed a classification list No. 1/92 under protest, since a classification for the impugned items had already been approved and it was the price list 9/91 effective 20-12-91 which was required to be approved in respect of compressors, condensers and evaporators of various makes of cars which the appellant was required to sell to various manufacturers of automobiles as original equipment and to wholesale dealers. However, the Superintendent returned the Price Lists stating that the products in Classification List and Price List should tally. A SCN was thereafter is...
Commissioner of Cus. (P) Vs. Afrique Trade Links Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT539Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri B.K. Choubey. Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, represented the respondents.2. The respondents imported "hologram labels". The importers claimed classification under heading 4910 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.Show cause notice was issued claiming classification under sub-heading 3919.90. The Assistant Commissioner examined the process of manufacture as also the structure of the tariff and ordered classification of the hologram labels under sub-heading 4911.99. An application was called to be filed by the jurisdictional Commissioner under the provisions of Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 claiming the classification to be under sub-heading 4911.91 and not under 4911.99. The Commissioner (Appeals) on analysis of the material before him opined in favour of sub-heading 4911.99 and rejected the department's appeal. The present appeal is from the Revenue challenging this order and claiming that the appropriate classification was under s...
Commissioner of Cus. (P) Vs. Artherton Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC217
1. The dispute in the present case relates to classification of Brine Shrimp Eggs imported by the respondent from USA. The imports made by the respondents, prior to the imports involved in the present appeal, were all along classified by the Department under sub-heading No.2309.90 of the Customs Tariff. The Bills of Entry relating to the imports in question were also assessed under sub-heading 2309.90 and the goods were allowed to be cleared accordingly.2. The Assistant Commissioner issued a notice to show cause dated 18-8-1998 alleging that the same were classifiable under sub-heading 0511.91 and not under sub-heading 2309.90 and on this basis differential duty was also sought to be demanded. The Assistant Commissioner, however, by his Order dated 6-10-1988 rejected the submissions made and confirmed the demands made in the show cause notice. On appeal being filed by the importers the Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to restore the classification under sub-heading 2309.90 by the fo...
Suparna Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC671
1. Appeal No. E/3949/99 was filed on 24.11.1999 within the prescribed period. The supplementary Appeal No. E/191/2000 was filed on 18.1.2000, beyond the prescribed period. The delay was due to the fact that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that only one appeal was enough to be filed against the impugned order. The supplementary appeal was filed soon after they were advised by the Tribunal Registry for filing the same. The reasons stated in the COD application appear to be genuine, The COD application is therefore allowed.2. The stay applications are for waiver of per-deposit of the duty amounts of Rs. 65,210 and Rs. 2,00,345.60 and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the captioned appeals. The applicants has availed and utilized Modvat credits to the above extent on inputs on 9.10.1995 and 30.3.1995. Later they reversed the said credits on 10.11.1995 and 2.3.1995 respectively at the time of export of their final products under the Quantity Based Advance Licence scheme....
Western Electrical Co. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC212
1. These 3 applications for stay are filed alongwith the respective appeals filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara dated 27.9.2000. The appeals have been filed by the appellants against the confirmation of the show cause notice dated 16.2.99 made by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara made in Order-in-Original No.04/BRC/MP/ADC/D.I/2000 dated 07.03.2000. By the said order, the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the duty which has already been paid and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,34,498 under Section 11AC of the Act on the appellants M/s. Western Electrical Company in Appeal No.E/3252/2000-Mum and Rs. 1,00,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000 each on the other two appellants in Appeal Nos. E/3253/ 2000&E/3254/2000.2. Shri R.C. Saxena, Advocate for the appellants states that the duty has already been paid before the issuance of show cause notice. The pres...
Commr. of Cus. (import) Vs. Uni Pharma India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT271Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today only stay application was listed for hearing. However, considering the issue involved, we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Mrs. Reena Arya, ld. SDR mentions that the Respondent M/s. Uni Pharma India had imported Dry Ginger of China Origin and declared the price at the rate of US$ 800 PMT; that the Asstt. Commissioner relying on certain quotations and Bill of Entry No. 463, dated 2-6-1999 had enhanced the value to US$ 1200 PMT; that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has just set aside the Adjudication order without giving any reasons and it is being non speaking order she prays for the matter to be remanded to the Appellate Authority.3. Countering the prayer, the ld. Advocate Shri Kumar submits that the value of the imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of quotation only and the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the matter fully and then only set aside the Adjudication order.4. We have considered the submis...
Haver Standard India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC485
1. On hearing Shri J.C. Patel, for the applicants and Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue it was felt that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,26,157=17 demanded as duty and Rs. 50,000 imposed as penalty.2. The appellant manufactures woven wire mesh of polypropylene as well as ethylene terra fluoro ethylene. Vide classification list effective from 1/45/1994 (sic) [1.4.1994] the goods were classified under Chapter 39. However, vide another classification list effective from 3.2.1995 the classification claimed was under Chapter 49 as textile products for special industrial purpose. Consequent to amendment in Rule 173B in Central Excise Rule Rules, 1944 a formal declaration was filed effective from 1.4.1995 claiming the same classification. The jurisdictional Superintendent vide letter dated 2.1.1996 opined that the earlier classification was correct and requested for details of clearances made under...
Maharashtra Krishi Udyog Vikas Mahamandal Adhikari Sanghatana Vs. Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR347; (2001)2BOMLR250; 2001(2)MhLj429
ORDERA. M. Khanwilkar, J.Rule. Returnable forthwith by consent.Heard both sides.1. This petition has been filed by the Officers' Association challenging the action of the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 19.5.2000 cancelling the orders of promotion and up gradation issued in favour of the concerned officers and for further direction that the concerned officers should be allowed to work on their respective posts to which they were promoted/ upgraded.2. Briefly stated the respondent-Corporation is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing, distribution and sale of fertilizers, agricultural equipments etc. It is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is an Association registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. All theofficers employed in the respondent-Corporation are members of the petitioner-union. The present petition has been filed on behalf of 102 officers whose names are mentioned in Ex. A to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »