Mumbai Court January 2003 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Quality Herbal Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC267Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai dated 29-4-1997, whereby it was held that the product Shikakai Herbal Powder as a product falling under chapter sub-heading 3003.30 and they were entitled to benefit of Notification No. 9/93.2. The respondent was holding Central Excise Registration and filed classification list for the year 1993 and 1994. They claimed classification of their product 'Wipro Shikakai Herbal Powder' under Chapter sub-heading 3003.30. The other product, as described in Assistant Commissioner's order in Para 2 thereof, it was declared as 'Siddha Medicine' used for cleansing, beautifying and keeping the hairs healthy. The Show Cause Notice dated 28- 12-1994 was issued by the Department proposing to classify the product under Chapter sub-heading 3305.90 attracting 70% rate of duty from 30-11-1993 to 28-2-1994 and 50% rate of duty from 1-3-1994. A reply was filed by the assessee respondent stating that the ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Tiki Tar Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT239Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The two appeals have been filed by the Department against the orders of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. In the impugned orders the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Assistant Commissioner's order viz. dipping of plain Insulation Board in bituminous solution would amount to manufacture.2. Before the two authorities below the case of the Department was that the respondent's action of dipping the fibre board manufactured out of bagasse will amount to manufacture and the board which are raw is commercially different from the board which is dipped in bituminous solution.3. When we approach the cases of this nature, we have to state that whenever any assertion is made by the Department that a particular product comes within the particular sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act, it has to be stated that the department has to prove by sufficient evidence as to why such an assertion is being made.4. In this case the respondent has manufactured ...
G.P. Manglani Foods P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1,06,122.55 demanded on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to transfer the balance lying in its modvat accounts consequence upon shifting of its factory from its existing location at Bhavnagar and relocation at a village 30 kilometres away.2. The credit has been denied on the ground that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57S and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57N permit transfer of modvat credit balance of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods respectively only if there was a change in the ownership or site of a factory resulting from merger, amalgamation or transfer of joint venture. Since ownership has continued unchanged, transfer of credit is not permissible.4. The cited sub-rules in question permit the Commissioner, on an application made by a manufacturer, to permit, subject to conditions and limitations, transfer of the credit lying in form 23A or 23B "on account of change in ownership or change in the site of a factory resulti...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Rakesh M. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Mumbai)288
ORDERG.C. Gupta, J.M.This appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1993-94 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The only issue in this appeal is regarding addition of Rs. 7,41,332 made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The learned departmental Representative argued that the addition was made on the basis of loose paper No. 20 seized during the search operations conducted at the assessee's premises on 5-1-1995. She argued that on the loose paper the amount of Rs. 7,41,332 is mentioned as paid on 24-11-1992 and the assessee could not explain the nature and source of the expenditure. She explained that the statement of the assessee could not be recorded on this issue due to his death on 18-12-1996. She has relied on decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. P.R. Metrani (HUF) (2001) 169 CTR (Kar) 149 (2001) 251 ITR 241 .3. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that no addition on the basis of noting on loose paper can be made sinc...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›