Mumbai Court March 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.
Amal Offset Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT348Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for waiver deposit of the redemption fine imposed is unnecessary, since the goods are under the control of the department.However, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner ordering confiscation under Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act of the printing machine that the appellant purchased from its importer and permitting it to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. The Commissioner found the machine liable to confiscation for the reason that the condition, subject to which its importation was allowed, that it should not be sold for five years from the date of importation, has been contravened.3. The contention of the representative of the appellant is that it was an innocent purchaser and was not aware of the condition subject to which the goods have been imported. He points out that the Commissioner himself accepts this. The Commissioner's action results in causing a liability on the appellant...
Nilon Machine Tools Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT618Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application by the appellant for modification was taken up for hearing today with the consent of both sides.2. Of the two grounds in the application, the one relating to the use of the brand name "Vijay" has already been considered and no reasons are advanced as to why we should consider the same again. The other claim is of financial hardship. The Tribunal had noted that no evidence whatsoever in support of the financial hardship has been produced and hence declined to consider it. The evidence now sought to be considered is a copy of the profit and loss account for the year ending 31 March, 2001. When asked why this evidence could not be produced when the stay application was being heard, the Counsel for the applicant says that the balance-sheet was required to be prepared by the Chartered Accountant and said that the Chartered Accountant took time to verify the details. When he was asked why unverified copy could not be produced on the last occasion, he has no answer.3. It i...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC952Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in each of these appeal is the classification of automatic data processing system imported by the appellant. The system under consideration in appeal 678/96 was imported with a vacuum emission spectrometer. The system under consideration in the other appeal was imported with an engine development system. The claim with regard to each of these was that it ought to be classified under the heading in which the spectrometer or, as the case may be, the engine development system, was classifiable, and not under Heading 84.71 as a unit of an automatic data processing system. This claim not having been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, whose order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us.2. The computer under consideration in appeal 678/96 was a desk top of 386 processor and in 328/96 was a laptop. There is no claim in the catalogue relating to the spectrometer or the engine development system that it is incapable o...
Thawardas Wadhumal Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT775Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The goods valued at Rs. 13,09,700/- being transported in 7 tempos were intercepted. One baggage declaration form filed by Shri L.R. Reddy was also noticed. The goods cleared under the Transfer of Residence Rules as also on adjudication on payment of duty, fine and penalties, were found to be of lower value and found to be lesser quantity than the goods intercepted. The passenger was not found. The clearances were handled by Shri Jairam T. Asrani, the proprietor of CHA M/s. Thawardas Wadhumal. He claimed that they were engaged in the clearance of unaccompanied baggage and that the actual work of preparation of documents were done by the clerk Shri Deepak Parekh. Shri Deepak Parekh in his statement deposed how the passenger Shri Lingala Raj Reddy had cleared his goods with his assistance, how the goods were examined and how the clearance was done on payment of duty, fine and penalty. In his later statement, however, he deposed that he was aware that the value of the contents of the b...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT664Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal by the Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the medicament manufactured by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the respondent to the appeal, did not become a patent or proprietary medicament for the reason it bore on their labels the manufacturer's name in bold letters. This fact had been relied upon by the Assistant Collector to come to his conclusion that the goods were patent or proprietary medicaments.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. CCE -1995 (75) E.L.T. 214, to come to his conclusion. The ground in the appeal that this ratio will not be applicable because "the circumstances in this case are different" is not supported by any explanation as to why they are different. In our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment, making a distinction between the house name of a manufacture...
Modison Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC975Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the silver alloy contacts that the appellant manufactured. It is not in dispute that these contacts were manufactured on the order of Shriram Refrigerators and supplied to them for use in the manufacture of overload protection relays which form part of the refrigerator. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held the goods to be classifiable under heading 8536.10 as overload protection relays.CCE v. Modison Metals Pvt. Ltd. -2000 (116) E.L.T. 535, the Tribunal has held such goods to be classifiable under Heading 85.38....
Stork Pumps India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT420Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Adjudicating on three notices issued to the manufacturer under Section 11A of the Act, the Assistant Collector held the stainless steel shaft bearings manufactured by the appellant classifiable under Heading 8413,00 as parts of pumps not under Heading 8483.00. The department appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals). That authority found the goods rightly classifiable under Heading 84.83 and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal by the manufacturer.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have heard the Departmental Representative.3. The ground in the appeal that notice was not issued under Section 11A of the Act, with regard to the goods is obviously misplaced. We have already referred to the three notices which the Assistant Collector adjudicated upon. The second ground that the Commissioner has not satisfied himself that the order of the Assistant Collector was not legal, while filing an appeal to the Commissioner (Appea...
Surat Ahmedabad Transport Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Adj.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT691Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeals are taken up for disposal with consent after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty of around Rs. 8.36 crores and imposed penalty of equal amount on Premier Synthetics and Rs. 80 lakhs on Suraj Dugar, the authorised signatory and imposed a penalty of Rs. 17 lakhs on Surat Ahmedabad Transport Pvt. Ltd. 3. The show cause notice issued to the appellants after investigation by the Directorate of Anti Evasion (which later became the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence) stated in paragraph 35 that the document relied upon in support of the notice were enclosed and would be made available for inspection on demand "which should be completed within 30 days from the receipt of this order." Except for the RG 1 register, sales ledger and central excise invoices of the manufacturer, all the documents were made available to the assessee on 27-11-2000.Copies of the remaining documents were made availab...
Commr. of Cus. Vs. Videocon Leasing and Indus. Finance
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT416Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Disposing of an appeal by Videocon Leasing and Industrial Finance Ltd., the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the classification determined by the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the importer's appeal. He thereafter issued a corrigendum stating that the classification that he determined was 'without prejudice to the benefit under Notification 49/95 for the "packaging material" which is evidently a commodity entitled for exemption. Accordingly, the rest of the appeal is dismissed. The rest of the order remains unchanged.' He thereafter issued a corrigendum to the corrigendum that was already issued. This amended the corrigendum to read 'benefit under Notification 49/95 to the machine for producing the "packaging materials" which is evidently a commodity. Accordingly, the rest of the corrigendum remains unchanged.' 2. The department's appeal contends that this corrigendum could not have been issued under Section 154 of the Act, that section is limited to correction of clerical an...
Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC95Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of ink-jet printer that the appellant imported. It claimed classification of these goods under Heading 84.43 of the tariff. This heading is for "printing machinery, including ink-jet printing machine other than those of heading includes." The customs was of the view that the goods are correctly classifiable as unit for automatic data processing machine which is covered by Heading 84.71. The objection having been made known to the importer, it waived the issue of written notice and hearing. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the classification of the goods under Heading 87.71. Hence this appeal.2. It is not in dispute that the goods are ink-jet printers. That is how they are described in the invoice that the manufacturer issued and the literature. Therefore, if the classification of the goods under Heading 84.71 is excluded, they would be then classifi...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »