Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Maxtone Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification, both for purposes of import licensing as far as customs tariff of the Intel Celeron processor of the appellant imported. The classification that it claimed in heading 85.42 of the customs tariff as far asunder the import policy was not accepted by the department is proposed classification of the goods in heading 84.73. Confiscation of the goods and penalty was also proposed. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the classification proposed by the department in 8473.30 of the tariff for purpose of assessment and ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 18000/-.2. The processor imported by the appellant consisted of an assembly consisting of the microprocessor chip, embedded in a printed circuit board with a heat sink and a cooling fan. The contention of the representative of the appellant that the printed circuit only forms the substrat...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kores India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Kores India Ltd., the appellant in 1568 and respondent to the appeal E/1800/02 filed by the Commissioner, was engaged in the manufacture of carbon paper. We are concerned in this appeal with the duty paid by the assessee between 1992 and 1997. The duty was paid provisionally pending determination of the eligibility to deduction from the sales price claimed from the price list that the assessee has filed. By four orders passed between January and March 1997, the Asst. Commissioner disallowed many of the items claimed for deduction. The assessees appealed this orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed orders either remanding in one case the matter to the Asst. Commissioner for allowing the appeal. The Asst. Commissioner passed common order in 1999 in which he allowed some of the deduction and disallowed some others. (It appears that the assessees have not questioned this element by the Asst. Commissioner). On this the Jurisdictional Superintendent passed orders on March 2000 ordering...

Eicher Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri F. D'Souza, Ld. Representative appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that the amount of Rs. 16,322/- has been demanded on account of late payment. His contention is that though the cheques were presented before the due dates for the quarter in question, however, the same were encashed a day or two later and consequently the imposition of interest. The Ld. Consultant brought to my notice the instructions issued as per the Directorate of Service Tax Board File No. V/DGST/30-Misc/49/2000 dated 23.8.2002 as under:- "It is observed that the identical issue had arisen in case of payment of Inland Air Travel Tax (IATT) by Sahara Airlines Ltd. The concerned authorities had imposed penalty and ordered recovery of the interest from the party since the cheques deposited by them towards payment of IATT were credited to the Government after the due date. The matter has now been decided in second appeal by the Government of India (Sahara Airlines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Custom...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Rosalee Paints P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT646Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a departmental appeal on the ground that modvat credit has been wrongly taken on the basis of the endorsed invoices. The period involved is April 1994 to June 1996. Shri Hemant Kotikar, Ld.SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that in view of the Notification No. 15/94-CE (N.T.) dated 30.03.94 and the Notification 16/94-CE (N.T.) dated 30.03.1994 and Rule 57-G, availing of the modvat credit on invoices endorsed after 1.4.94 is not permissible and as such the respondent are not entitled to avail modvat credit in this case.2. Shri Mayur K. Shroff, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent contended the settled legal position is that procedural lapses are not to be taken into account for denying the modvat credit.He heavily relied on the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai, Order No. GS/95-BRD/97 dated 16.7.97 particularly paras 4 and 5, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the Tribunals decision in the case of M/s. ...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Stadfast Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on a boiler and magnetic tape stated to be part of the boiler. While the Asst. Commissioner denied the credit on the ground that the steam generated in the boiler was exempted from duty and the further ground the boiler at the relevant time was not specified as a capital goods in the explanation below Sub-rule (1) under Rule 57Q. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit on the ground that the amendment made to the Rule 57Q subsequently incorporating a boiler was clarificatory in nature and retrospective and also on the ground that the definition of capital goods as it existed at the relevant time was such as to include the boiler and its part within its scope. This is challenged in the appeal by the Commissioner.2. I have heard the department representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. The appeal repeats the contention in no...

Tukaram S/O Motiram Kurhade Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR866; (2004)106BOMLR802

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents.2. Rule. By consent of the parties, the Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard.3. The brief facts are as under :The Petitioner is the owner and occupant of the land bearing Survey No. 26/4, admeasuring 1H and 90R area. The aforesaid land has been acquired by the Government of Maharashtra for public: purpose under L.A.C. No. 28/LAQ-70-77/l/LAQ/79-80 of village Pandhurna. The respondents are the acquiring bodies and the compensation was granted by passing an Award dated 20th March, 1981, passed by Respondent No. 2. The land of other villagers was also acquired and by virtue of the common Award, compensation was granted. A person viz. Isnaji Piraji Dhabale, being aggrieved by the said Award, filed a Reference under Section 18 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, for claiming enhancement in the compensation amount. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Yavatmal, passed the co...