Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments
Pest Controls (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT429Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue, pertain the same issue, i.e. what valuation rules apply when value of excisable goods cleared to the Service Centre of an Assessee of Pesticides / Insecticides in bulk packaging is effected and when such goods are used in and as pesticide eradication / control Service Contracts are entered into with various customs? 2. Assessee manufacturers and clears Pesticides / Insecticides packed in Retail packs to whole sale dealers for onward Retail sales. Certain such products, in bulk packs, are removed to Service Division for use and consumption in services rendered for 'Pest Control' under contracts entered into with household/industrials/commercial premises owners/users. In respect of such "Bulk Removal's" the assessee has discharged duty on an assessable value arrived at under Cost Construction Rule based on Chartered Accountants certificates.b) Without questioning the Chartered Accountants certificates, the department contends the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Vazir Polymers Ltd. and Shri Amrit Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai
1.1 Appellants are an assessee situated Kandla free Trade Zone and a Director of the assessee company. The company is engaged in reprocessing of plastic granules, agglomerates etc.1.2 A Show Cause Notice dated 25.4.99 was issued to the appellants, as regards imported 17,940MTs of HDPE Powder (Plastic Powder for re-cycling plastic waste / scrap) which on examination revealed that the same were not "Plastic Powder for Re-cycling" as declared. The goods were found to be undervalued, as compared to Platt prices, the test report did not confirm the declaration which consisted of Polyethylene having specific granules more than 0.94, in primary forms.Import of the said goods was not permissible, the duty exemption under notification 133/94 were not available and confiscation and penalty liabilities were involved.1.3 The Adjudicator confirmed the enhancement of value, classified the goods under CTH heading 3901.20, denied the benefit of notification No.133/94, ordered the confiscation Under S...
Tag this Judgment!Jet Airways (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants are a scheduled airline. They imported certain item for use as replacement in their Aircrafts. The goods being urgent requirement were cleared on direct delivery basis on several BES filed during the period Jan 98 to March 98. The claim for clearance were made, as freely importable, in terms of para 5.34 of the Handbook of Procedures for the year 1997-2002 on duty as applicable vide Sr. No.190 to notification 11/97-Cus. dated 1-3-97.2. A notice dated 23-4-1998 was issued, asking the importers to show cause why the goods as per Annexure thereto should not be ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 & penalty not be imposed, the imported items were placed in three annexures as follows - (B) Item like transreceivers which require W.P.C. licence issued by Department of Communication in the Ministry of Communications total CIF Rs. 1,40,10,180/- (C) Radio altimeter & like which require specific import licence valued at Rs. 3,64,91,463/- C...
Tag this Judgment!ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC94
1. This appeal arise against Order-in-Appeal No. 387-CE/APPEAL/ BHOPAL/ 99 dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Galvanised Steel Sheets/Hot Rolled Sheets/Cold Rolled Sheets falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, having its factory at Kalmeshwar.3. The appellants sell all its products through its own depots located at different places in India. There is no factory gate sale at all, but the sale is exclusively through depots.4. The rate of duty on the products manufactured by the appellants being dependent on value; the appellants were required to file price lists under Rule 173-C (prior to 1.4.94 for approval of the proper officer and declaration. Accordingly, the appellants filed price lists in Form-IV and Declaration in the given form. In the price lists/declaration, the appellants had declared depot sale prices and from those prices, the appellants had claimed d...
Tag this Judgment!Anurag Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC47
1.1 Appellants are an assessee under the Central Excise Act engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under the Central Excise Tariff on their own accounts &on job work, entailing conversion of aluminium ingots into aluminium castings out of inputs supplied by M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd under Modvat rules.1.2 During the course of such Aluminium Castings, emergence, certain quantities of Oily Metal Aluminium droplets arise, due to solidification overflow of molten metal etc. Same is swept/collected & remitted on job work basis to another party. Permission on 26.12.79 was granted by the jurisdiction officer to remove such oily solidified aluminium strap, for reprocessing into Aluminium ingots; it was to be eventually rejected & used the movement ie/removal of scrap was not insisted on duty payment. 1. On 17.11.96, Prevented Officers, on a visit to the factory of the appellant objected to such removals of the oil metal Aluminium scrap, generated during the casting process, without ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. National Cloth Printing Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT35Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.10.1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad against Order-in-Original dated 23.01.1998 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad.2. The Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of M/s.National Cloth Printing Works, Ahmedabad, on 30.06.1990. It is found that the 'Assessee' had cleaned hand processed cotton fabrics admeasuring 13,47,576 lm after finishing processes, under exemption Notification No. 253/92 to different firms of one Mr. Gelaram Narang, a merchant manufacturer of MMF and CF.3. As per statements recorded, the assessee appeared to have received only 1,13,224 meters of hand bleached fabrics from M/s. Atlas Screen Printers, M/s. Ankur Screen Printers and M/s. Vijata Textiles and the remaining 12,34,352 meters fabrics were not received in hand screen printed nature, but were printed by the assessee in the factory with the aid of machines....
Tag this Judgment!Morarjee Goculdas Spg. and Wvg. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)201
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 28th Aug., 1997 against the order of the learned Dy. CIT, Special Range-34, Mumbai, in the case of the assessee under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, for the block period from asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1996-97 and for the incomplete asst. yr. 1997-98 from 1st April, 1996 to 18th July, 1996.2. The facts of the case leading to this appeal, briefly, are that there was a search under Section 132 conducted at the premises of the assessee-company on 19th July, 1996. In the impugned order it is stated that this search was finally concluded on 22nd Sept., 1996. This search was a part of an all India investigation in respect of lease transactions entered into by a large number of assessees resulting into claim of 100 per cent depreciation allowance on leased assets. A notice under Section 158BC was issued on 22nd Oct., 1996. In response, the assessee-company filed on 21st Jan., 1997, the return of income under Section 158BC for the block period d...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Inspector ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj40
Ranjana Desai, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of F.I.R. No. 102 OF 2003 and F.I.R. No. 2-23/03 dated 5th August, 2003, pending on the file of Nhava Shiva Police Station and Uran Police Station, District Raigad. It is alleged that the petitioner has contravened Sections 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the said Act') read with the Maharashtra Solvent, Raffinate Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Order 2000 as amended.2. Before we touch the merits of the case it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of law. Section 3 of the said Act enables the Central Government to issue orders providing for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of any essential commodity and trade and commerce therein. Section 7 of the said Act provides for penalties for contravention of any order made under Section 3. Section 8 of the said Act states that an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appointment of Guardians for the New Born Male Child (Now Known ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR655; 2005(1)MhLj924
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 seeks relief that they should be declared as guardians of the wards viz. Faraz (formerly known as Sohail). The Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the natural guardians viz. the mother and the father. The child is born on 2.5.2004 and thus, is about six months of age. The Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have also other three children known as daughter Roobina, who is around 12 years old, son Farook, who is about 10 years old, another son Iqbal, who is around 5 years old. 2. The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are residing at Houston Texas in the United States of America. The Petitioner No. 1 is a citizen of India and the Petitioner No. 2 is the citizen of United States of America. They are both husband and wife. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are wealthy having assets of about US $ 4,000,000. The Petitioner No. 2 is a qualified bachelor in Business Management. According to the Petitioner, they are desirous of ado...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. D.N. Vidhate and Shri S.N. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR662; [2005(104)FLR1078]; 2005(1)MhLj666
F.L. Rebello, J.1. Respondent No. 1 was dismissed from the service of the petitioner after an enquiry. A reference came to be made pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. On reference the learned Industrial Tribunal by its Part I Award was pleased to hold that the enquiry held was not fair and proper and consequently permitted the parties to lead evidence before it in support of the charges of misconduct. On behalf of the petitioners several witnesses were examined. Respondent No. 1 examined himself. The learned Tribunal by its Award dated 1st November, 2002 held that the charge of remaining unauthorisedly absent had been proved. In so far as charge of late attendance on more than four occasions in a calender month is concerned it was also held to be proved. However, in so far as the charge of habitual or gross neglect of work or habitual or gross negligence recorded a finding in favour of Respondent No. 1. In so far as the contention urged that the Respondent No. 1 was penali...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »