Mumbai Court November 2002 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.
Strobel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard the learned Advocate Shri Y.N. Despande, Advocate for the appellants, M/s. Strobel Industries and the learned DR, Shri S.V.Parelkar for the Revenue on 23-8-2002. The learned Advocate for the appellants argues that the refund claim filed by the appellants has been wrongly rejected as time-barred. He submits that since the duty was paid under protest, the Customs House was not sure of the classification of the product in question till the decision of the Tariff Conference and the claim was filed soon thereafter, it should be allowed without rejecting it as time-barred. The learned DR states that since the duty was paid on 3-10-1986 and the refund claim was filed on 30-1-89, it was clearly time-barred in view of the specific provisions conferred in Section 27 and therefore, he supports the decisions of the lower authorities rejecting the claim. The learned DR also produced a copy of the Central Appraising Manual, Volume IV, page 15 outlining the manner of protest to be registere...
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT247Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit, it appeared that the issue being simple the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done on granting the waiver as prayed for.2. The appellants manufactured cotton yarn and discharged the burden of duty at the spindle stage. Although they had filed the necessary declarations under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 they did not take credit of the duty so paid. They then sent the yarn for weaving into grey fabrics to job workers outside in terms of Rule 57F(4) of the Rules on depositing the sum equal to 10% of the value of such goods as prescribed under Sub-rule (6) of the said rule. Sub-rule (4) required that the materials be received back within six months and the deposit recredited within six months. In the present case the re-credit amounting to Rs. 1,48,704/- was disallowed and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals...
Ericson Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT378Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order it appeared that the issue having been earlier decided by the orders of the Tribunal the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.2. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner suspended the operation of the CHA licence held by M/s. Ericson Enterprises with immediate effect, using powers conferred upon him under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. He referred to two cases of import of rough marbles in which the CHA had appeared in an adverse light. The first case related to imported marble blocks by M/s. Bikshu Margam. The invoice filed with the bill of entry showed value of US $ 14,500.80. However, at the time of personal hearing the bank attested invoice showing the* value of US $ 54,570.40 was produced. The latter amount was actually found remitted through the bank. The importer claimed that the CHA had obtained lower invoice from the shipper and had filed i...
South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC310Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai upholding the order of the Dy.Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad who has finalised provisional assessment of tyres, tubes etc. manufactured by the appellants and cleared by them during the period 1-7-2000 to 26-9-2000 to M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. based upon the price at which M/s. Goodyear sold to their customer, on the ground that the appellants and M/s.Goodyear India Ltd. are related persons as they have interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other and on this basis confirmed duty demand of Rs. 25,76,706/-.2. We have heard Shri Sridharan, Id. Counsel for the appellants and Shri S.V. Parelkar, D.R. for the department. We find that in appeal filed by M/s. South Asia Tyres Ltd. for the prior period, the Tribunal vide Order No. C.II/2803-06/2002-WZB, dated 12-9-2002, has held that the appellants and M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. arc not related persons as they do not ha...
Universal Medicare Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT802Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 5,45,063/- on reversal of Modvat credit and Rs. 1 lakh imposed as penalty, it appeared that the issue being simple, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, it was done on granting the prayer for waiver.2. The appellants manufactured medicine named 'phexin' for a loan licensee. They had taken credit on the strength of two invoices which showed the loan licensee as the consignee, and not the appellants.Queries were raised and the assessee explained to the jurisdictional officers that normally the goods were received from the supplier on the invoices showing both the names of the licensee and the manufacturer.In these two cases, by mistake, only the name of the loan licensee was shown. In spite of this explanation, a show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the amount referred to above. Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty, in doing so he cite...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Singh Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT834Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) - The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who has accepted the licence submitted by the importers/respondents herein for clearance of 'Supranol Green BW' Dyes holding that on the date of issue of licence to the importers, dyes were not in the sensitive list and subsequent inclusion of dyes in , the sensitive list by way of Notification did not affect the validity of the imports.2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue already stands settled by the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Carpet House [1996 (88) E.L.T. 436], wherein the duty free clearance was held to be permissible because the restriction in Import Policy as existing on the date of issue of licence was held to be relevant and it was held that subsequent amendment was not to govern the import. The item imported in that case also Supranol Green BW dyes. The Reference Application filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal'...
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT327Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri A. Hidayatulla, learned advocate for the appellants states that these four appeals are against a common order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 33/43,486.25 Ps. and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The period of demand relates to 31-3-1992 to 31-7-1993. The appellants manufacture table tops from duty paid decorative laminated sheets purchased from other manufacturers. The issue in these appeals is whether Modvat credit on such decorative laminated sheets should be restricted to Rs. 800/- per tonne under the third proviso to the Notification No. 177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said proviso inter alia restricts Modvat credit to Rs. 800/- in the case of paper and paperboard. It is the case of the appellants that the inputs used by them are articles of paper and paperboard classifiable under sub-heading 4823.90 and therefore they are not subject to the restriction as clarified by Board's Circular No. 13/91, dated 5-3-1991. ...
Chowgule Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Kunal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants are the agents for the master of the vessel "Sea Transporter" which ran aground off Fort Aguada, Goa in June, 1994 when a cyclone hit Goa coast. As the vessel had become a wreck it was sold to a ship breaking concern in Alang, Gujarat. For the wreck to be removed it was cut into 3 pieces. Two sections reached Alang safely on which duty was paid at Alang. The third section sank on-route. The impugned order-in-appeal confirms duty demand of Rs. 73,72,706/- on the third section levied by AC, Customs, appraising on the appellants, who had executed a bond with Goa Customs to guarantee payment of customs duty by the buyers at Alang.2. The learned advocate refers to a certificate from the Nautical Adviser to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Transport Hearing No. 11/NT (23)/94-II, dated 20-9-95 regarding sinking of the third section on 22-1-95 at 2230 hrs. which was observed by Indian Warship D55. The learned Co...
Elephanta Gases Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT42Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the main challenge against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 10-10-97 is against the imposition of fine.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Oxygen gas. It supplies Oxygen gas through pipeline to M/s. Ispat Profiles India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IPIL). The appellant's factory is set up in the premises of IPIL. A show cause dated 5-3-97 was issued to the appellant demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 27,76,542.89 for the period from 1-3-94 to 30-11-96 on the ground that the value charged by them from M/s. IPIL was less to the extent of free of supply of water and power. It was further alleged that they were charging Rs. 1.50 per NM3 less from M/s. IPIL in comparison to other buyers in the course of wholesale trade. According to the Revenue the appellant deliberately, knowingly and intentionally did not disclose the fact that M/s. IPIL had supplied electricity and industrial grade water free of cost. It is al...
Cce Vs. Niranjan Plastics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(108)LC629Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the appeal was taken up I have gone through the authorisation signed by the Commissioner. It does not contain the crucial words "not legal values" or in terms of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act.In view of this the said section of the Central Excise Act, it has not complied with mandatory legal requirement. The question was considered by the larger bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bombay Switchgear where the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held as follows: Now coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the order authorising the appeal does not refer to any satisfaction on the part of the Commissioner that the order appealed against is not legal or proper. Learned Departmental Representative made available to us photocopy of the note sheet of the relevant file. Thereafter the file was transferred to the office of the Principal Collector and a fresh note is seen put up to the effect that appeal has to be filed; with reasons suppor...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »