Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Page 67 of about 734 results (0.892 seconds)

Rex Arts Castors Pvt. Ltd., Rex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(177)ELT179Tri(Mum.)bai

..... these appeals by the assesses.4. the brief facts of the case are these. rexello castors pvt. ltd. (rcpl) is a company registered in the year 1976 under indian companies act, 1956, which was originally a partnership concern as rexello industries and it is situated at 23/d, mahal industrial estate, mahakali caves road, andheri (e), mumbai 400 093 and was ..... .2, 9.7, 9.8, 10.1, 10.5, 10.7, 10.7.3 and 10.10. the sum and substance of this citation is that m/s. rcpl was acting as a focal point in receiving orders from the customers and stockists. the requirements of the clients were being distributed to the various manufacturing units as the per the convenience .....

Computility Computers Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)(158)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai

..... collector has erred in considering the invoices in the case of imports made by bank of america from bank of america, hongkong, as evidence, for valuation under section 14 of the customs act. these invoices are not for comparable goods, as system, sold by ibm world trade corporation, hongkong to bank of america, hongkong, who have sent the ..... sale invoice would include local profits levies including opportunity costs and would not indicate inter national export trade prices. the submissions of the appellants that section 14(1)(a) of the customs act stipulates valuation of the imported goods shall be deemed to be the price at which said or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for ..... initiated by the collector of customs.after considering the materials on record the confiscation of the goods imported in this case under the provisions of section 111(d) and (m) of the customs act, 1962 was ordered along with an option to clear the goods on payment of a fine of rs. 6 lakhs from one month of .....

T.E.L.C.O. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... such conflicting decisions and i proceed to decide the appeal, which is pending for over 6 years and relates to a refund claim filed in august, 1995.3. section 27 of the customs act, 1962 inter alia allows filing of a refund claim of duty paid 'in pursuance of an order of assessment'. the appellants have filed such a claim within the ..... of the apex court in the case of karnataka power (supra).6. no doubt, appeals against any decision or order including a b/e can be filed under section 128(1) of the customs act, 1962. but obviously, no modern customs administration worth the name should either refuse to pass an appealable order in a disputed case or insist on filing of ..... . the appellants have paid duty 'in pursuance of an order of an assessment' on the b/e. they have subsequently filed a refund claim within the time limit prescribed under section 27. in a similar case, the apex court has ruled vide karnataka power corporation ltd. v. c.c. (appeals), chennai - 2002 (143) e.l.t. 482 (s.c.) to .....

Sophisticated Marble and Granite Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(165)ELT353Tri(Mum.)bai

..... level of fine and penalty determined by the tribunal in the earlier orders. it has dismissed customs application no. 27/2002 and other applications of the commissioner under section 130a of the act on the ground that determination of fine was a finding of fact. similarly, while allowing the writ petition no. 4124 of 2002 of marmo classic, it has ..... . he also points to instructions in the manual that the fine has to be equal to these norms or the margin of profit whichever is higher.6. section 125(2) of the act provides that the fine for redemption of goods ordered to be confiscated cannot exceed the market price of the goods and excise duty payable thereupon. therefore, any ..... this limit cannot be said to be contrary to law.similarly, the penalty on the importer will not be illegal if it is within the limits specified by section 112 of the act. the margin of profit, which is a contentions issue in this appeal, is only a working rule that the department accepts. the reason for basing fine upon .....

Modern Suiting Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT168Tri(Mum.)bai

..... the bond /lut executed before the customs".and demanded a sum of rs. 96,03,687/- plus interest and ordered the same to be recovered as per section 142 of the custom act 1962.b. as regards liability to confiscation of the goods detained on 19.7.2000, failure to fulfil the export obligation and resultant contravention of notification 110/95 ..... , in case they fail to pay the amount of duty indicated above and the interest due why it should not be recovered from them along with penalties under section 142 of the customs act 1962.along with noticee, shri p.l. sarwagi vice-president of appellants co.shri agarwal & shri ravinder shah, ca were also called upon to show cause ..... why penalties under section 112 (a) & 112(b) of the customs act 1962 not be imposed on them. (a) accordingly the allegations in the scn are found to be substantiated in respect of "12 i) that the .....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Akash Enterprises

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... goods in this case had been proposed to he enhanced interalia on the basis of documentary evidences in the form of fax messages supported by statements recorded under section 108 of the customs act showing actual transaction value and not on the basis of contemporaneous imports at higher value. the commissioner has further failed to bring out in his order as to .....

Kiran Sagarmal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT432Tri(Mum.)bai

..... hilt. in the case reported 1983 (b) elt 1546, the supreme court held that the burden of proof on the department is discharged under the provisions of section 156 of the evidence act, if circumstantial or direct evidence sufficient to raise a presumption in favour of facts sought to be proved. burden of proof shifts to the appellant, if the ..... informed by shri chikla that he was coming to nizamabad for the purpose of selling the gold etc.3. the ld advocate's main contentions are that section 123 of the customs act doest not apply to goods seized by the police and handed over to the customs officers; that the passenger who brought the gold from abroad clearly stated ..... did not discharge the burden cast on them to prove that the gold is smuggled into the country; that the gold is not liable to confiscation under section 111 (d) of the customs act and the person concerned is not liable for penalty.4. the ld dr, shri arun chopra while defending the order of the commissioner (appeals) submitted that .....

Satyendra M. Sawant, Kiran M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... choksi. we, direct pre-deposit of rs. 50,000/- by shri choksi.5. as regards shri satyendra sawant there is a clear admission on his part that he agreed to act as an importer as bidding of shri choksi as, he was in need of money. therefore no prima facie case is made out by him. having regard to totality of ..... . tripasa industries ltd. the foreign supplier of the goods who had sought report of the same. we also do not find prima facie merit in the plea that provisions of section 111 (d) and 111 (o) which should have been invoked for the purpose of confiscation of the goods are not attracted and therefore penalty under ..... section 112(a) can be imposed on shri choksi as duty free import was permissible only subject to the condition that imported goods were to be used in the manufacture of .....

M.S.Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports) Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... imported without obtaining noc from the drugs controller or not. to decide the issue, i have to go through the provisions of drugs and cosmetics act, 1940. section 10 of the said act imposed prohibition of import of a drug. as per the said provisions, no person shall import any drugs or cosmetics, the import of which prohibited ..... behalf of the revenue and submitted that the goods have rightly been confiscated by the adjudicating authority following the provisions of drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 and as per section 11 (2) of the said act, it is within his power that when he is having a doubt when the imported goods are drugs, he may draw samples, which ..... of entry for clearance of the said goods. the goods were examined and a doubt was raised, the goods imported are drugs and are prohibited under drug and cosmetic act. therefore, samples were drawn and the opinion of assistant drug controller (adc) was obtained, who opined that imported goods are drugs. therefore, the goods were confiscated .....

M/S. Globe Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... transactions pertaining to the subject goods. however, the finding of undervaluation of the goods by the assessee, by and large, was founded on the statements recorded under sec.14 of the act. shri kumud c.mehta , in his statements dated 21.12.2000, stated inter alia that he was working partner of m/s. globe plastics engaged in the ..... the same is confirmed in adjudication of a show-cause notice which was issued on 3.7.02 invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to sec.11a(1) of the act. in the present appeal, the demand has been challenged both on merits and on the ground of limitation. 2. the goods in question are acrylic ..... ( hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is against demand of duty of rs. 34,99,417/- confirmed under sub-section (2) of section 11a of the central excise act and equal amount of penalty imposed under sec.11ac of the act. an amount of rs. 86,296/- paid by the assessee during the course of investigations has been appropriated towards the demand .....