Mumbai Court May 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.
Shri Ii Lalwani, Shri S.J. JaIn and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-2001
1. In these three appeals appellants have filed Certificates issued in Form No. 3 in terms of Rule 5 (a) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rule 1998. Hence the three appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Poly Bright Packs Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-2001
1. This is an application for restoration of the appeal dismissed by the Order No. C-II/1149-50/WZB/2000 dated 11.4.2000. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) following the Bombay High Court Judgement in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1992 (57) ELT 201] had held that the principle of unjust enrichment would not apply where an importer had used the inputs in the manufacture of further goods. This judgement was later reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Solar Pesticide Pvt.Ltd. [2000 (116) ELT 401 (S.C.). When the case came up for disposal the appellant assessees were not present. Following the Supreme Court judgement the Tribunal dismissed the appeal Ex-parte. In the present proceedings it is claimed that the notice for hearing was not received by the assesses appellants in time. It is also claimed that the appellants had requested for an adjournment to engage a Counsel. It is further claimed that the Supreme Court in t...
Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. M/S. Pms Diesals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-2001
1. When this application was called out, we find that the appeal relates to the issue of rebate of duty of excise on goods exported from India. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal does not extend to such cases as per the prohibition in the first proviso to sub-section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This appeal is wrongly filed. Hence the appeal is dismissed....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Neptune Polymers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2001
1. When this application seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order was called out, we find that the issue stands settled by the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Solar Pesticides 2000 (116) ELT 401. The respondents are absent although due notice was sent to them. Earlier also the respondents continued to remain absent.We therefore take up the appeal for final disposal.2. The Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order upheld the belief of the lower authority that where any goods were used captively in the manufacture of further goods, and where there was any claim for refund in pursuance to a dispute on duty paid on such consumed goods, the principle of unjust enrichment had no operator. In making the order, the Commissioner relied upon certain judgements including that of Bombay High Court reported in 1992 (57) ELT 201. That judgement was set aside by the aforementioned judgement of the Supreme Court. Therefore prima facie the claim made by the revenue i...
C.C. (import), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Umang Computers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2001
1. The applicant seeks stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying "mouse pads" under Sub-Heading 8473.30 as accessory to computers. The claim of the revenue is that the classification should in terms of the constituent material and in the present case, it should be under sub-heading 3921.13.2. The respondents are not present. The counsel has requested for adjournment. Although the revenue is small, we find the issue to be interesting and post the case for final hearing in the first week of August 2001. Registry to issue notice....
Commissioner of Customs, Vs. Ami Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2001
1.On noting due compliance by the appellate Commissioner, the notice under Rule 11 of the Cegat (Procedure)Rules 1982 was discharged and the application for stay of operation of the impugned order was taken up.2. On perusal of the contents of the appeal memorandum, it appears that contested goods have been cleared by the respondent on payment of differential duty under protest.In this circumstance, there is no purpose in filing or pursing the stay application. The same is hereby dismissed....
Arihant Yarn Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2001
1. On hearing arguments on the stay application, we find that the issue stands settled and take up the appeals for final disposal on granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and penalty imposed on the applicants.2. The appellant was operating under the HASITPAPCD Rules, 1998. In computing the number of chambers for determination of duty, the length of the galleries was also included. Before the Commissioner, an order of the Tribunal was cited wherein the propose of galleries was discussed and it was held that the rail length would not form part of chambers. In the face of this judgement the adjudicating Commissioner once again went into the case law given by other forums without any relevance to the facts before him. He also took note of the amending notification and rule that prior to the date of amendment specifically excluding the galleries, galleries would stand included in the calculation.3. A number of judgements have been issued on the is dispute culm...
Ali Mohammed Saale Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2001
1. The facts leading to the present applications are as follows. Rajiv Ghanekar was intercepted at the airport and foreign exchange totally amounting to US $ 59600 was recovered from him. He deposed that the currency was given to him by one Ali, son of the present applicant, which currency in turn had been supplied by one Jain. Ali and Jain were not available for interrogation. Ali Mohd. Saale, present appellant gave a confessional statement that he used to purchase foreign exchange from travellers and he used to export the same. He confessed to having been in smuggling profession from 1970 and never been caught. The statement was retracted by him on the same day. The Commissioner confiscated the currency and imposed penalty on Ghanekar of Rs. 2 lakhs and on the present applicant of Rs. 5 lakhs. The present applicant has filed an appeal and this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.2. Ld. Counsel Shri Ravi Irani, advocate submits that the retracted statement has no value a...
Dhum Darabshaw Randeria and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-2001
1. On 23.5.95 and 2.5.95 the Customs Officers searched the premises of M/s. Tiptop Watch Makers and seized Watch Parts totally valued at Rs. 3,48,650/-. Out of this, goods valued at Rs. 19,550/- of Indian origin were later released. From the residence of D.D. Randaria watch parts valued at Rs. 13,24,000/- were seized alongwith Indian currency of Rs. 4,05,000/-.2. Statements of the employees of M/s. Tiptop were recorded. The statements of employees of M/s. Marks & Company who sent watches to Tiptop were also recorded. The employees stated that repair works were undertaken and that the spare parts were given by D.D. Randaria and his son.3. Within a fortnight of the seizure D.D. Randaria in his letter stated that the watche parts were locally acquired and most of them were purchased from Customs Auction in the first sale.4. One Shri C.N. Tolia in his statement claimed that he was routinely purchasing watch parts from the Customs auctions and supplying them to some other companies inc...
M/S Navjeevan Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-2001
1. After hearing Shri P.R. Kulkarni, we find that the issue is covered and therefore take up the appeal for final disposal on granting waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.1,17,150/- and penalty of equal amount.2. The appellant was operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination (HASITPACED) Rules, 1998. In determining the number of chambers the length of the galleries had been added. Before the Commissioner an order of the (CEGAT)was cited in the case of C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE[2000(120)ELT 829 (T)] in which the CEGAT had held that regarding the purpose served by the galleries the rail length of galleries could not be taken into account while determining the number of chambers. In the face of this direct order also the Ld. Commissioner attempted to distinguish the said judgment. He went into the interpretation of the explanation to notification No. 42/98. He also referred to some other case law which advice that the meaning of the w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »