Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indica Laboratories Redson

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT904Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The notice issued to the respondent before us proposed to disallow the benefit of the notification 339/86 which exempts intravenous cannulae for long term use on the ground that the cannulae manufactured by the respondent were disposable, and hence not for long use. The Asst. Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals) on an appeal filed by the department, held that after considering medical opinion that the cannulae were for long-term use. Hence this appeal.2. The grounds of appeal by the department do not have a word to say about the finding on long-term use. It quotes at length from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Trio Marketing Pvt.Ltd.vs. UOI 1992 (57)ELT 249. The Calcutta High Court in this judgment did not consider whether the cannulae before it was for long term use or for use other than long term. There is nothing in that judgment that seems to apply to the facts of the case before us with regard to this aspect.3. We must observe, in p...

Tanzeem Screenarts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT656Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant obtains translucent plastic sheets on which it prints graphics and texts to advertise particular products. We are told that screen-printing is used for this purpose. The appellant returns the plastic sheets to the customers. It is not disputed that these sheets are part of illuminated signs used for advertising goods and services.The sheets in printed material are placed in a frame which is appropriately lighted so that the passer-by sees an illuminated sign containing the advertisement. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has classified the product as part of illuminated signs under heading 94.05 of the Tariff.3. This Tribunal has considered the classification of such signs earlier. In its order in Classic Strips Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Mumbai in appeal E/2611 and 2612/00, it had accepted the contention of the appellant before it that such sheets were classifiable under heading 49.01 as product of the printing industry. Therefore, they were disqualified ...

Sharma Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT421Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in calculation the value for clearances made by the appellant for the purpose of notification 1/93, it is the date on which the textured polyester yarn manufactured by the appellant was notified as being eligible for the benefit of the notification,or the date on which the appellant opted for the notification, that is to be reckoned.2. This issue has been decided by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore vs. Sri Kumaran Spinners P. Ltd 1997 (73) ECR 894, holding that it is the clearances from the date on which the manufacture opts for the exemption that should be reckoned.3. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.Consequential relief according to law....

Automobile Corporation of Goa Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT64Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. The appellant manufactures and fits bodies to chassis of buses. It sends steel sheets to its sheet metal division, a separate licensee, for making the shapes and section, which when assembled on the chassies constitute the body. After the receipt of these sections, the appellant mounts them and joins them on the desired order on the chassies resulting in the emergence of a body.3. No duty was paid on the fabrication of the shapes and sections by the sheet metal division; the benefit of notification 214/86 as amended was claimed. The notification inter ali exempts goods manufactured in a factory on job work and used in relation to manufacture of final products, specified in column 2 to Table to notification on which duty is leviable. There is no doubt that motor vehicles are among the final products specified in column 2 of the Table.4. During the financial year 1993-94, body building was exempted fr...

Hameo Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd. Vs. Commission of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported four consignments of aluminium scrap which was used in relation to manufacture of its finished product. It took additional duty of customs paid on the scrap as modvat credit on 28.9.95. At the relevant time, the second proviso under sub-rule (2) of rule 57G provided the credit should not be taken beyond six months after the issue of the duty paying documents specified in the first proviso under that sub-rule, among which was included a bill of entry.2. The additional duty was paid on the four consignments in question on 24.3.95. The credit was taken six months after the payment of duty. The department issued notice proposing to disallow the credit taken alleging that the second proviso had been contravened. The Asst.Commissioner whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the proposal in the notice. Hence this appeal.3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the depa...

Ratnagiri Building Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we have decided to take up the appeal itself after waiving deposit.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs confirming the demand for duty issued to the appellant on the ground that it wrongly availed of the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit had been taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported product.3. It is the contention for the counsel for the appellant that it did not avail of the benefit of notification 203/92 at all but of notification 204/92, which did not contain any such condition. His contention is seen to be correct from the copies of the import licences and the bill of entry produced before us. The two licences in question are quantity based advance licences, entitling goods imported under them to the benefit of notification 204/92, and not notification 203/92. The copy of the bills of entry under which the goods were cleared shows that the importer claimed, ...

Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani Vs. Solestrap Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR282; (2001)4BOMLR737; [2002]110CompCas831(Bom); (2001)3CompLJ35(Bom); 2001(3)MhLj389

Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In October, 1997, the Plaintiff agreed to grant to the Second Defendant, a Bill Discounting facility to the extent of Rs. 2.50 crores in respect of Bills of Exchange drawn or accepted by or on behalf of the Second Defendant. A personal guarantee was executed by the Third Defendant. A Bill of Exchange dated 3rd October, 1997 in the amount of Rs. 49,98,480/ was drawn by the First Defendant and was duly accepted by the Second Defendant payable to the Plaintiff 90 days after date. The Plaintiff is also the holder in due course of another Bill of Exchange dated 14th October, 1997, in the amount of Rs. 61,48,920/- drawn by the First Defendant and accepted by the Second Defendant which was payable to the Plaintiff 90 days after date. Similarly, a third Bill of Exchange dated 22nd October, 1997, in the amount of Rs. 80,24,600/- drawn by the First Defendant and accepted by the Second Defendant was payable to the Plaintiff 90 days afterdate. The three Bills of Exchang...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Smt. Rasila S. Mehta and Smt.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD27(Mum.)

1. As common facts on issues are involved in these four appeals, the same were argued together by the common authorised representative of the assessee and the Departmental Representative. The same are being decided by this consolidated order for convenience.2. These four are cross-appeals filed by the assessees as well as Revenue in relation to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for asst. yr. 1988-89 in the case of two assessees.3. Facts of the case leading to these appeals as mentioned in the penalty orders and the impugned appellate orders of the learned CIT(A), briefly, are that these two ladies were connected with one Shri Harshad S. Mehta. There was a search under Section 132 of the Act on 27th Sept., 1990. During the course of the search, Shri Harshad Mehta made a statement that in the absence of updated books of account, the source of investment in various assets might not be properly known to them and, therefore, the members of the family made a declaration of additional ...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Smt. Rasila S. Mehta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000]82ITD27(Mum)

ORDERBenchAs common facts and issues are involved in these four appeals, the same were argued together by the common authorised representative of the assessees and the Departmental Representative. The same are being decided by this consolidated order for convenience.2. These four are cross appeals filed by the assessees as well as revenue in relation to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1988-89 in the case of two assessees.3. Facts of the case leading to these appeals as mentioned in the penalty orders and the impugned appellate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), briefly, are that these two ladies were connected with one Shri Harshad S. Mehta. There was a search under section 132 of the Act on 27-9-1990. During the course of the search, Shri Harshad Mehta made a statement that in the absence of updated books of account, the source of investment in various assets might not be properly known to them and, therefore, the members of the family made a...

Luthra Dyeing and Printing Mills, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty demanded of Rs 2.07 lakhs, and redemption fine ordered on good provisionally released of Rs 2.07 lakhs approx have been paid. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed on the manufacturer of Rs 2.07 lakhs, and fine of Rs 10,000/- for redeeming its plant and machinery ordered to be confiscated. The application by Girishbhai R Luthra, director of the manufacturer is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 10,000/- imposed on him under Rule 209A.2. The duty, fine and penalties are in consequence of the finding of the adjudicating authority that the manufacturer removed fabrics processed by it without payment of duty. In disposing of the appeal against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that part of the goods which the applicant is stated to have been removed had in fact not been so removed. Taking this aspect into account and the amount already paid, I direct deposit by the manufacturer of Rs 50,000/- towards penalties on it and on Luthra, and f...