Mumbai Court May 2002 Judgments
Simon Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC430
2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held the appeal before him to be barred by limitation. He had noted that as a result of the amendment to Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, with effect from 11-5-2001 by the Finance Act, 2001, time-limit for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) has been reduced to sixty days from the earlier period of ninety days. The appeal had been filed before him 27 days beyond this time of sixty days and in the absence of an application for condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.3. The Counsel for the appellant points out that the appeal, against the order of the Assistant Commissioner on service tax had been filed not under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act but under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Sub-section (3) of this Section provided a period of three months for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The provision contained in the proviso to this sec...
Tag this Judgment!Cc Vs. Magnaplast Technologies Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(106)LC383Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is the includibility in the assessable value of machinery and other goods imported by Magnaplast Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, of the payment made by it to Max Baermann Gmbh for supply of technical know-how. At the relevant time, the respondent was a wholly owned subsidiary of the German company. The respondent has entered into an agreement on 31.3.1992 with the German company. This agreement provided for payment by the respondent to the foreign company for payment of a total DM 305000 for supply by the latter of know-how to it. The agreement defined "technical know-how" as follows: (a) the technical, engineering and process information and data relating to the manufacture of the products. (b) technical documentations including technical data, process, details, specifications of equipment, raw materials required to be purchased, layout of factory, detailed drawings, designs, plants and data t...
Tag this Judgment!Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT334Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Notice issued to the appellant demanded duty on the medicament Conaz tablets cleared by it between 10-7-1996 and 19-10-1996. The basis for the duty was that the price of the product for sale to its dealers had been indicated by the appellant in its price list effective from 8-7-96 to be reduced to Rs. 29.43 as against the earlier price at which the goods was sold at Rs. 45.02. The notice alleged that during the relevant period, the price of the active ingredients of this medicament norfloxacin and tinidazole had been increased. The assessee resisted the contention in the notice. The Asstt. Commissioner [whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)] confirmed the proposal in the notice. Hence this appeal.3. It was the contention of the appellant that it had reduced the price in order to deal with the competition in the market. It had also mentioned factors such as poor off-takes, change in the technology, emergence of alternative product with alternate technology. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Electrotherm (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC740Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We do not see any merits in the application filed for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in the appeal. We, are however, of the view that the appeal could be disposed of and therefore with the consent of both sides, take it up.2. The question before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order impugned before us, the classification in the Customs Tariff of the water-cooled electric resistor that the respondent imported. In the bill of entry that it filed for its cleared, the importer had claimed classification in Heading 8533.29. Heading 85.33 is for electric resistor other than heating resistor. The department was of the view that this classification was incorrect. In his order of assessment, the Deputy Commissioner held the product classifiable in subheading 8548.90 which is a residuary heading of Chapter 85 and includes "electrical parts of machinery or apparatus, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter." 3. On appeal, the Commissioner (...
Tag this Judgment!Munilal Mehra and anr. Vs. Cc (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC748Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The 1st Appellant, Mr. Munilal Mehra is a Partner of M/s. Mehra Enterprises. The 2nd Appellant, Mr. Bimal Mehra is the son of the 1st Appellant. In July 1994 the Commissioner of Customs (P) issued Show Cause Notice No. VIII/10-19/NV-11/93 inter alia to the Appellants. It was alleged that one M/s. S.V.S. Trading Co. in collusion with the Appellants and some other parties imported goods under duty free Import Export Pass Book No. 0011263 and sold the same, in the open market instead of utilizing the same in the manufacture of the resultant product viz. Carpets. The Notice proposed to levy Personal Penalty on all parties including the Appellants under Section 112(a), (b)(i) & (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Vide Order-in-Original No. CCP/ADJ/MGV/33/95 dated 30.3.1996 (issued on 9.5.1996) the learned Commissioner of Customs (P), imposed personal Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each (total of Rs. 1 Lac) on both the Appellants under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The present a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Vinay Kumar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents herein imported a consignment of 12 coils of Tin Mill Black Plate (T.M.B.P.) weighing 96.045 MTs and cleared the same at concessional rate of duty in terms of ad hoc exemption Notification No.169, dated 10-10-90 which provided for concessional rate of duty on TMBP coils imported by MMTC for the manufacture of electrolytic tin plates. It was subsequently found that 8.35 MTs out of the total quantity imported was sold without tin plating and hence show cause notice proposing denial of the benefit of notification and proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 63,676/- as well as confiscation and penalty was issued, to which the respondents replied that they sold the quantity of 8.35 MTs since they were completely damaged and not fit for tin plating and that it cannot be said that T.M.B.P. was not imported for the manufacture of electrolytic tin plates. The adjudicating authority confirmed the charges set out in the show cause notice, confirmed the duty demand, directed confisca...
Tag this Judgment!Elecon Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC509Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of material handling equipments/systems such as a coal handling conveyors, travel scraper machines, rotary wagon tipplers, etc. Considering the size of these equipments; the goods are removed in knocked down conditions for assembly at the customers premises. The customers of the appellant are State Electricity Board's, Power Plants, coal mines, railways and other core sector industries. The factory of the appellant is spread over several acres of land and comprises of different workshops. The equipments manufactured by the appellant undergo several stages of manufacture in different workshops. Pursuant to visit by the preventive officers on 26-6-1994 seizure of goods worth Rs. 88,73,082/- was made.The details of the goods seized are as follows :(i) Goods found loaded on trucks ready Rs. 1,13,745/-for removal.(ii) Scrap found in the scrap yard Rs. 23,370/- and Rs. 50,000/-(iii) Goods found all over the factory Rs. 86,85,467/-pa...
Tag this Judgment!Jog Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT460Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty amount of Rs. 70,38,646/- confirmed against the applicants by the Dy. Commissioner of the Customs whose order has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The demand of duty has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants herein were not entitled to the benefit of Notfn. No.23/98-Cus. at Sr. No. 166 of the Table annexed thereto, since they had entered into contract for construction of Highways with the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation vide Condition No. 74 of the list of conditions in the notification which provides that the goods in question for which exemption is being claimed should be imported by a person who has been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport by the National Highway Authority of India or by Public Works Department of a State Government. It is the finding of the authorities below that the contra...
Tag this Judgment!Cc Vs. K.R. Steel Union Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC1056Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents herein imported a consignment of 12 coils of Tin Mill Black Plate (T.M.B.P.) weighing 96,045 MTs and cleared the same at concessional rate of duty in terms of ad hoc exemption Notification No.169 dated 10.10.1990 which provided for concessional rate of duty on TMBP coils imported by MMTC for the manufacture of electrolytic tin plates. It was subsequently found that 8.35 MTs out of the total quantity imported was sold without tin plating and hence show cause notice proposing denial of the benefit of Notification and proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 63.676/- as well as confiscation and penalty was issued, to which the respondents replied that they sold the quantity of 8.35 MTs since they were completely damaged and not fit for tin plating and that it cannot be said that T.M.B.P. was not imported for the manufacture of electrolytic tin plates. The adjudicating authority confirmed the charges set out in the show cause notice, confirmed the duty demand, directed confisc...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Sunil Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, the respondents herein filed a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the input "Acrylic Plastic scrap in crushed form" and took credit of additional duty of Customs (CVD) amounting to Rs. 1,20,801 against B/E dated 17.11.1993. By letter dated 22.3.1994 of the Supdt. of Central Excise, they were directed to reverse the credit taken. They replied maintaining that credit was correctly taken and hence was not reversible. By order dated 13.5.1994, the Asstt. Commissioner of Cen. Excise disallowed modvat credit and directed its reversal and this was done by the respondents by debit entry made under protest in their RG. 23A Part.II. The respondents challenged this before the Commissioner (Appeals) and succeeded. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the lower Appellate Authority has held that under Rule 57I(1) of the Central Excise Rules as it stood at the relevant time, it was mandatory to issue show cause not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »