Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Page 1 of about 734 results (0.326 seconds)

Shri Vishan Shamlal Milwani and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(109)ECC113

..... the goods. they did not have the capacity to manufacture the entire goods stated to have been clandestinely removed that their manufacture of fireworks is governed under the explosive act and so the production cannot be concealed and that they cannot work during night as electricity is not used in the premises as the heat generated by electricity can ..... possible for them to remove calendestinely finished goods valued at rs. 1.36 crores from the factory premises.10. as regards penalty it was submitted that penalty under section 11ac is not mandatory as has been held in a number of decisions and since no clandestine clearances have been effected the penalty is not imposable at all.11 ..... as in case of clandestine removal all facts cannot be similar and each case has to be judged on its own merits.15. as regards the mandatory penalty under section 11ac, we hold that the penalty is the maximum penalty provided and not equivalent penalty and we are inclined to reduce this penalty to rs. 5 lakhs only .....

Liberty Oil Mills Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1986)LC654Tri(Mum.)bai

..... his contention the advocate relied on para 295 of i.t.c. handbook of rules and procedures 1977-78 which specifically mentions the health laws, drug control act, arms act, explosives act, excise act, etc., as examples of prohibitions under other laws. but this paragraph in the handbook is of a clarificatory nature and is to the effect that an import ..... appellants.thereafter they received a show cause notice from the collector exercising his powers of suo motu review of the asstt. collector's order under old section 130 of the customs act, as the collector held that the asstt. collector's order was bad in law. the appellants sent a reply to the show cause notice issued ..... . the other contention of the learned advocate that both the ogl no. 4 and the imports and exports (control) order derive their source of existence or authority from section 3 is also not relevant. while it is true that as per clause 11(4) of the imports (control) order no prohibition under the imports (control) order .....

Anil Chemical and Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)(158)ELT759Tri(Mum.)bai

..... to rs. 4,10,27,681/- by alleging that plot no. 48 and 49 are in fact one unit and explosives emerges at plot no. 48 and 49, as a result of application of section vi of the central excise tariff act. it was further stated that bmd vehicle cannot be treated as workshop, consequently exemption granted to goods manufactured in a workshop ..... .9.1994 to dec. 1996, by invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of section 11-a of the central excise act, besides the allegation of manufacture of explosives at plot no. 48 and 49, in view of note 2 to section vi of the central excise tariff act, revenue alleged that appellant had recovered the amount of central excise duty from the customer .....

Anil Chemicals and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai

..... made for the extended period is hit by limitation. the following judgments witness this ruling - (1) the storage in three compartments of the ingredients necessary to manufacture prepared explosives in the same van did not amount to manufacture and that the provisions of rule 2(a) of the rules for interpretation of central excise tariff did not apply. ..... and could not fall under the ambit of the aforesaid rule. the belief of the commissioner that these three ingredients carried separately in the same van were prepared explosives incomplete or unprepared form has no substance and must be rejected.5. as the second argument before him the assessees claimed that the goods on final mixing at ..... to evade payment of duty. in the absence of any specific averment to this effect, the proviso to section 11a does not come into operation. no such allegation is made in the show cause notice at all. the act of not taking a licence is described as wilful but there is nothing to sustain the invocation of the .....

Boc India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... a penalty of rs. 25, 000/- was also imposed under section 112(a) of the customs act, 1962 which was paid on 8-12-2006.4. the commissioner of customs (i) observed, in the impugned order, that petroleum and explosives safety organisation, nagpur, vide letter dated 20-10-2006, permits the use of nitrogen ..... constrained to observe that import of the empty cylinders are in contravention of the gas cylinder rules, 2004 and hence liable for action in terms of section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962. however in the given circumstances of the case that the cylinders when absolutely confiscated would serve no purpose. commissioner (i) has inclined to ..... cylinder from being refilled with any compressed gas without obtaining prior approval of the licensing authority. accordingly, vide the impugned order the goods were confiscated under section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same, for purpose of re-export only, on payment of redemption fine of rs. 2,50,000/-. .....

Kesari Steels Ltd., Kotdwar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2006)(113)ECC327

..... material is found in the consignment. this is not in dispute. the commissioner of customs found that the goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of customs act, 1962 on the ground that the appellants have not produced pre-shipment certificate. therefore, the commissioner of customs, kandla in all the cases ..... and the exporter stipulating that the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges, radio active contaminated, or any other explosive material in any form either used or otherwise.4. in the present cases, importer did not furnish sale contract document, but however furnished pre-shipment certificate ..... 28 to the effect that: a) the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges, radio active contaminated or any other explosive material in any form either used or otherwise. waste/scrap/seconds/defective as per the internationally accepted parameters for such a classification. c) copy of the .....

indo Berolina Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... to chemical, petro-chemical, fine chemicals, organic chemicals, pharmaceutical, explosives etc. during the period impugned herein, supplied such consultancy as per agreements entered into by the customers of the appellant assessee under the central excise act herein. the disputed demands of duties were raised under section 11a along with proposals for penalty under section 11ac on the following grounds: a) the appellant company and ..... by the engineering company from the customers who were supplied with plant and machinery by the appellant assessee herein has to be considered for addition to the value under section 4 of the act to determine the duty liability on the plant and machinery items and cleared to such customers. (c) he did not hold the advances received by the appellants from .....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ankur Corporation

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT229Tri(Mum.)bai

..... against the captioned order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner of customs (appeals), mumbai disposing off seven appeals filed by the department invoking the provisions of section 129d of the customs act, 1962 against seven order-in-originals.2. as the issue involved in all the matters is the same, the ld.commissioner of customs (appeals) has ..... authority to take that into consideration and he should not have taken a different view.to substantiate the same, the ld. sdr has referred to tribunal's decision in indian explosives ltd. v. collector - 1996 (82) e.l.t. 270 (tribunal).9.8 during the course of submissions, the ld. sdr has also referred to some ..... material issue for consideration here, there is no need for deliberation here.15. with the ceiling provided for fixing the redemption fine vide proviso to section 125 of the customs act, 1962 the actual fixation of the quantum of fine is left to the discretion of the authority adjudicating and as is elaborately discussed in the order .....

National Rifles Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1999)(112)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai

..... were manufacturing the parts and accessories for captive consumption in their final product. he therefore confirmed the demand of rs. 5,00,771.42 under rule 9(2) section 11a of the central excise act, 1944.2. the ld. counsel for the appellant shri baxi referred to their declarations filed on 20-3-1986, 10-5-1987 and 30-5-1988 to ..... tribunal decision in the case of nestler boiler pvt. ltd. v. collector -1990 (50) e.l.t. 613 and on the decision of the tribunal in the case of indian explosives ltd. v. collector -1986 (24) e.l.t. 345 to say that where the declaration has been filed by the assessee giving the details of the manufacture the department cannot ..... factor in favour of the appellants. therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we hold that the longer period for demanding duty in this case under section 11a cannot be invoked and as such the appellants succeed on grounds of limitation. the impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed in the above terms.

Chemifine and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT336Tri(Mum.)bai

..... water, alcohol and benzene; slightly soluble in ether, almost insoluble in chloroform. low toxicity, non-combustible.' 'fertilizer; animal feed; plastics; chemical intermediate, stabilizer in explosives; medicine (diuretic); adhesives, separation of hydrocarbons (as urea adducts); pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, dentifrices, sulfamic acid production; flameproofing agents; viscosity, modifier for starch or case in ..... 13-5-1983 passed by the additional collector of customs, bombay by which he ordered confiscation of tetracycline urea complex under section 111 (d) of the customs act read with section 3 of the import and export control order, 1947 but, however, allowed redemption on payment of fine of rs. ..... collector of customs, bombay by which he ordered confiscation of a consignment of tetracycline urea complex under section 111 (d) of the customs act read with section 3 of the import and export control act, 1947, but however allowed redemption on payment of fine of rs. two lakhs.6. shri a .....