Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments
Bureau Veritas Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT688Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Pride Foramer, the appellant in appeal 1348/02, was the owner of oil well drilling rigs and drill ships which it leased out to parties engaged in oil exploration or exploitation. It entered into a contract with the Oil & Natural Gas Commission in January, 1999 for lease to the latter of a jack-up rig of 300 ft depth to be utilised for oil exploration and exploitation off the coast of India. The appellant was not in ownership of such a rig, and in order to comply with the terms of the contract, purchased in March, 1999 the rig Pride Pennsylvania from Pride Global Limited, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands at a price of U.S. $ 17 million. The rig was being deployed for off sea exploration in accordance with the directions of the hirer, Oil & Natural Gas Commission, and did not initially enter either Indian territorial waters or any areas of the exclusive economic zone designated under the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Othe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikkamal Chhotelal Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1141Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported in November, 1996 a ship for breaking. A bill of entry was filed by it under protest on 9-12-1996 for assessment of fuel and lubricating oil contained in the vessel's machinery and engines. The bill of entry was finally assessed on 12-12-1996. The appellant paid the duty assessed, under protest and filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He said that while the assessment made on the bill of entry was communicated to the importer on 12-12-1996, the appeal against that order was received on 9-7-1997. Noting that no application for condonation of delay had been filed, he dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and has requested decision on the submissions filed by it. These submissions claim that the letter dated 31-5-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bhavnagar, in reply to the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Chaitanya Plastics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT772Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of pouches and key cases of polyvinyl chloride manufactured by the appellant. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Additional Commissioner, that these goods are classifiable as travel goods in Heading 4201.90 of the tariff.2. The Additional Commissioner's order is no ground for accepting the classification claimed by the manufacturer in Heading 3926.90 of the tariff for other articles of plastic not elsewhere specified. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Explanatory Notes to Heading 42.02 for his conclusion that the goods are classifiable in Heading 42.01 of the tariff.3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.4. In terms of the words of Heading 42.02 key cases and pouches of plastic would doubtless be classifiable in Heading 42.02.5. The Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Aegis Lpg Bottling Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT350Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appellant imported consignments of propane and uthane. These consignments on arrival were assessed to duty provisionally under Section 18 of the Act. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner finds that prior to clearance, the propane and uthane were mixed and was cleared was liquified petroleum gas which was liable to special additional duty of customs. He has ordered that the bill of entry was assessed finally and duty and special duty of 4% be recovered.3. The notice upon which the Commissioner adjudicated proposed recovery of duty under Section 1 of Section 128 of the Act invoked the extended period of limitation. It also proposed confiscation of the goods. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner has in effect ordered recovery of duty short-levied and that this act is primary since the relevant date specified in the explanation under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 has not yet arrived, has to be accepted.The Commissioner's order is n...
Tag this Judgment!Marmo Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT81Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the processes undertaken by the appellant on the synthetic diamond powder that it imports, amounts to manufacture.2. The processes are not in dispute, and consist of heating the powder in a mixture with caustic soda, thereafter washing it and putting it in a solution of hydrochloride, and washing it once again and drying it.By the first process it is claimed to dissolve any organic impurities that it may contain in the caustic soda mixture which is washed of. By means of second process the mechanical impurities are sought to be removed. It is stated that after being subjected to these processes diamond detains a very insignificant proportion of these impurities and is thereafter used to cut and polish gem quality diamonds. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has concluded that by means of these processes a new product emerges, having for its use for cutting and polishing diamond and has classified the diamon...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Exice Vs. Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT893Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This stay application is filed by Revenue was heard and the matter considered and it is found :- (a) The respondents are an EOU engaged in the manufacture of Grey Fabrics and are also having permission to get their work done on job work basis. The appellants cleared their production to DTA, as permitted under EXIM Policy against foreign exchange, advance release order, Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC for short). The officers of the Central Excise visited the unit and detained 1173.283 Kgs. Of yarn containing 333 lumps of grey fabrics, for want of clarification. The appellants clarified the issues and DCCX, Kalyan-II Division was pleased to release the detained fabrics with the direction to clear the goods on production of valid licence and after payment of appropriate duty. The appellants made submission as regards the duty applicable and requested to endorse the subject DFRC as per their interpretation and allow the assessee to make the clearance of the detained goods or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hivoltrans Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT709Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application filed by the assess, the respondent to this appeal, for refund of duty paid in excess was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, and, as requested it, was permitted to take credit in its modvat account of the amount referred which it did on 28.6.1995. Notice signed on 20.2.1995, and acknowledged by the assessee on 21.2.1995 proposed recovery of the refund on the ground that it was wrongly sanctioned. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders ordering recovery of the refund on the ground that the sanction was contrary to law. The assessee appealed to this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted one of the ground sin the appeal that the notice was beyond the period of six months specified in Section 11A of the Act, if reckoned the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning refund. He therefore allowed the appeal.2. The appeal by the Commissioner against this order contends that it is the date of actual payment of refund i.e. the date on which cre...
Tag this Judgment!Pam PharmA. and Allied Machinery Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT360Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the cam that forms part of the capsule making machine that the appellant manufactures. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed classification of this cam in Heading 8483.00 of the tariff determined by the Assistant Commissioner, declining to accept classification of this as part of the machine in Heading 84.79.2. Heading 84.79 is for machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter hence falling in Chapter 84. Heading 84.83 includes within its scope transmission shafts including camshafts and crankshafts.3. Counsel for the appellant explains that the cam is used to transmit motion provided by the electric, motor with use of shaft attached to enable operation of the pusher, which used to give the shape to the gelatine capsules galette. The cam therefore is certainly used in the transmission of motion, in this c...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Steel Company and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: II(2005)BC151
1. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common Judgment and Order because though the bills and amount of recovery in these appeals are different, the respondent Bank is the same and pleadings and findings in both the matters arc also identical except the amounts and dates of Hundis. The learned Presiding Officer disposed of both the applications namely O.A. No. 3056/2000 (High Court Summary Suit No. 3324/1993) and O.A. No. 3057/2000 (High Court Summary Suit No.3326/1993) by his common Judgment and Order dated 26.3.2002, which is impugned in these appeals. The appeal No. 17/2002 is arising out pf O.A. No. 3056/2000 and appeal No. 18/02 is arising out of O.A. No.3057/2000.2. Case of the applicant Bank i.e. Union Bank of India in both the original applications? is that one M/s. Basant Alloy Steel Ltd. was its constituents. It has drawn certain bills of; exchange (Hundis) on the defendants for valuable consideration. The Hundis' were payable. after specified period. T...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Mum.)345
1. This Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objection are directed against CIT(A)'s order dt. 22nd July, 1997 and in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the asst. yr. 1994-95. As a matter of convenience, therefore, the appeal and cross-objection are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.3. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, solitary grievance raised is as follows: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 6,51,22,058 made on account of interest on Government securities and IRFC bonds." 4. Learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to Tribunal's order dt. 22nd Nov., 2002 passed in assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1992-93, on a perusal of which we find that the aforesaid order squarely covers the above issue in favour of the assessee, Learned counsel has also invited our attention to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »