Mumbai Court July 2004 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.
Relish Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT432Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit of duty paid inputs and capital goods received in their factory and used them in the manufacture of dutiable final products.During 1996-97 and 1997-98, the appellants filed classification list declaring their products as medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) under sub-heading 3003.10 attracting central excise duty of 15% ad valorem for the purpose of exports and in sub-heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duty for the purpose of home consumption. The department was of the view that medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) irrespective of their clearance either for export or for home consumption are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duly. Show cause notice which came to be issued alleged that the appellants cleared the said products under sub-heading 3003.20 chargeable to nil rate of duty for t...
Arviva Industries (i) Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT506Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of grey fabrics sent for processing to various processing units viz. Oceana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mazda Fabrics Processors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shiva Suitings Ltd. In the case of M/s. Shiva Suitings Ltd. it was found that the appellants had entered into the agreement with them in March, 1993 by which M/s. Shiva Suitings Ltd. unit at Dombivili was leased to the appellants who were to carry out processing of fabrics during the lease period. Hence for all purpose, the unit of Shiva Suitings Ltd. was an extended manufacturing unit of the appellants It was noticed that the appellants processed in addition to others, their own grey fabrics. The department was of the view that the assessable value of processed fabrics cleared from M/s. Shiva Suitings Ltd. was to be determined as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ie. by adopting the sale price at which the appellants sold their goods to their customers dealers and not a...
Apco Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT647Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants were having a factory at GIDC Kalol where they were availing Modvat Credit on inputs received for use in manufacture of PVC Battery Separator and PVC Compounds. They set up another factory at village Wamaj Kadi for manufacture of Glass Fibre Battery Separators.They decided to shift the plant and machinery of Kalol factory to Wamaj and sent a letter dated 16.12.97 to the Commissioner seeking for permission to transfer the unutilised Modvat Credit of Rs. 65,01,687 in the RG23A for the Kalol factory to the RG23A at Wamaj factory. On 5.3.98 they informed the Assistant Commissioner the details of inputs in stock, finished goods as well as amount of Credit unutilised i.e.Rs. 63,97,716/- with a request to shift plant and machinery, finished goods and inputs to Wamaj factory.2. The assessee was intimated that permission was granted to transfer of unutilised credit to the extent available on "inputs as such" or "input contained in the goods under process" and that any excess cred...
C.C. Ex. Vs. Kline Chemicals P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT261Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The Revenue is in Appeal. The issue involved in this appeal is that reversal of Modvat Credit on chlorine gas 10% which is flamed out in the atmosphere after scrubbing with the solution of caustic soda lye/Flakes out of total quantity of Chlorine gas.3. M/s Kline Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Vapi, were engaged with manufacture of Inorganic Chemicals falling under chapter 28 and copper articles thereof falling under chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.4. The Assessee was using Chlorine gas as input in the manufacture of Aluminium Chloride. About 10% chlorine gas was flamed out in the atmosphere after scrubbing with the solution of caustic goods lye/Flakes out of total quantity of chlorine gas. The chlorine gas flamed out is fully exempted under notification No. 7/94 C.E. dated 1.3.94. Since 10% chlorine gas was not used in the manufacture of final product i.e. Aluminium Chloride, assessee is not eligible for Modvat Credit. Modvat Credit taken on flamed out gas during the period f...
Rainbow Ink and Varnish Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC410
1. The importers herein imported item described as "Printability Tester AIC 2-5" and cleared the same on payment of duty @ 60% + 45% + CVD 15% under Customs Tariff Heading 9031.90 and subsequently claimed refund on the ground that the goods attracted duty @ 40% + nil + CVD 15% under Customs Tariff Heading 9024.80 read with Notification 158/88-Cus dated 13/05/1988. The claim for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the catalogues submitted by them indicated that the equipment was meant for visual judgment of the evenness of the print, while heading CTH 9024.80 covers machines / appliances for testing hardness compressibility, elasticity or other mechanical properties and hence the goods were not classifiable under CTH 9024.80.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence this appeal.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. Hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has di...
National Organic Chemicals Vs. C.C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT366Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The issue pertains to denial of Modvat Credit availed on electric cables which are laid from the appellant unit to Mahape Sub-Station (MSEB) amounting to Rs. 5,77,908/-. The Assessee procured 3926 meters of cables & availed CENVAT Credit to Rs. 5,77,908 during December 2001 to April 2002. These cables were used for an express feeder line from MSEB Mahape Sub-Station to their RCD plant which was parallel to the already existing power supply line. Out of the total length of 3926 meters; only 100 meters were used within the factory premises & the remaining cables were used outside the factory premises for the purpose of power supply. The assessee had availed Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the entire cables irrespective of the fact that only part of the cables were used within their factory.However, as per the provisions of Rule 2(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 Cenvat on capital goods is available to those which are used in the factory in the manufacture of th...
Axel Polymers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC413
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants, who are engaged, in the manufacture of compounded LDPE and HDPE, and compounded Polyamide falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the CETA, 1985, have rightly paid duty on inputs used in the manufacture of the above and availed modvat / cenvat credit thereupon, instead of availing of exemption of final products under serial No. 73 of the table appended to Notification 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 which exempts plastic raw materials falling under heading 39.01 to 39.14 if produced out of waste and scrap of plastic (the appellants herein used waste and scrap as inputs in the manufacture of their final products). According to the department the appellants are not entitled to modvat / cenvat credit as their final products are exempt from duty, and the appellants had no choice but to avail of exemption under the above mentioned notification. On this basis credit of Rs. 33,06,227/- has been disallowed and...
Corporation Bank Vs. Ruia Cotex Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: II(2006)BC250
1. This appeal was preferred against an order dated 14th August, 2003, made by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (1), Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as "the DRT". The respondent No. 6, which has been impleaded in the Memorandum of Appeal, was the proforma defendant in the claim petition. According to the Bank the respondent No. 6 was the holder of the first charge over the immovable properties, which had been mortgaged by the respondents in favour of the Bank by way of securing the financial assistance, extended by the Bank and enjoyed by them. The subject matter of dispute before the DRT was, whether after having initiated proceedings for the recovery of its debts under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", the Bank was entitled to issue simultaneously notice, for the recovery of the same debts, by invoking the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruct...
Tata Motors Limited and anr. Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR661
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner, which is a company called Tata Motors Limited have challenged certain demands issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation in relation to certain dues of octroi duty which according to the respondent Corporation was payable for last several years by the petitioner.2. The petitioner basically contests these demands as wholly without jurisdiction because according to it, the demand itself is void, having been raised under Entry not applicable to the items imported by the petitioner company.3. The petitioner has factories amongst other places at Pimpri Chinchwad and in its Pimpri plant the petitioner manufactures commercial and passenger vehicles for which a number of components such as FIPs, radiators, wheel rims, cross members, batteries, wind shield glasses etc. are required. These items which are components of the vehicles manufactured by the petitioner are purchased and brought into the local limits of Pimpri Chinchwad Mu...
Shravan Vithoba Dekate and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Di ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR27; 2005(1)BomCR823; 2004(4)MhLj625
B.R. Gavai, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 30-5-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Revision Case No. MRC-81/Khapa-1/85-86 vide which the Additional Commissioner has set aside the order dated 17-4-1985 passed by the Collector and directed confirmation of auction sale dated 27-12-1975.2. The factual background in short giving rise to the present petition is as under :-- The Industries Officer, Nagpur addressed a letter to the Collector, Nagpur for recovering an amount of Rs. 5000/- from the petitioner No. 3 (original respondent No. 2) as arrears of land revenue as he had not paid the loan of same amount to the Government. The petitioner No. 3 had mortgaged the agricultural land admeasuring 10.46 acres as security. The Tahsildar, Saoner registered a case being Case No. 31/B-109/65-66. Vide order dated 10-10-1975 the Tahsildar, Saoner issued a proclamation for attachment of the property. On 27-12-1975 Naib Tahs...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »