Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 58 results (0.063 seconds)

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 .....

Arti Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, cartridges, shells, mines, radio active contaminated or any other explosive material. in the absence of such certificate the consignment was seized and confiscated under provisions of section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of rs. 1,75,000/-. a penalty of .....

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 .....

B.V. Jewels and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(116)ECC264

..... to establish their licit import, we uphold their confiscation with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of rs. 43 lakhs under section 125 of the customs act as held by the commissioner.28. similar is the situation in respect of unaccounted diamonds which have been exported without proof of its licit import as shown ..... section 112(a) and section 114(i) is unwarranted. accordingly we set aside the same.30. as regards imposition of penalty of rs. 2 ..... imposition of penalty of rs. 5 crores on m/s. b.v.jewels under section 112(a) and section 114(i) of the customs act, 1962 is concerned, we find that a penalty of around rs. 12 crores has already been imposed under section 114a of the customs act, and therefore we feel that further imposition of penalty of rs. 5 crore under .....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gsicl and ors.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC246

..... less to support, the allegations of clan destine removal on the other hand, there is over-whelming evidence on record including the statement of the cha recorded under section 108 of the said act and the records of kpt to show that the said goods covered by bill of entry no. 1804 dated 25.02.1997 have not yet been cleared by ..... goods covered by the said bill of entry no. 1804 dated 25.02.1997 were removed clandestine without assessment and without proper permission of the proper officer under the said act. in this connection the respondents submitted that while investigating the officers found 24 pallets weighing 85.862 mts of the said goods lying in docks of "a" warehouse, which are .....

Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC161

..... heading 8423 as contended by the appellant or as parts falling under 8431 as held by the department. the description of the tariff heading 8428 and 8431 and section note 2(a) of section xvi of ceta are reproduced as under: 8428: other lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery (for example, lifts, escalators, conveyors, teleferics) 8431: parts suitable for ..... only under chapter 8428 attracting lower rate of duty. only parts and components supplied for maintenance contract should be classified under 8431. (iv) notes 2(a) of section note of chapter xvi and rule 2(a) of interpretative rules should be applied in their case and the entire clearances made in pursuance of contract for erection should ..... is quashed and set aside and it is declared that the erection of lift is not excisable under tariff item no. 68 of the first schedule to the said act. it is made clear that in this petition we have held that the erection of a lift us a whole is not excisable and we have not dealt with .....

Pluto Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and NitIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... accept the submission of the learned counsel that it is not sustainable for the reason that in the first round of litigation, penalty was imposed only under section 11ac of the central excise act and no penalty was imposed under rule 173q, in spite of proposal for the same in the show cause notice and it is only in the present impugned .....

Jetking Information Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)8STJ476CESTAT(Mum.)bai

..... training institute, computer training institute or a recreational training institute, to any persons from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the said act. reading of the above notification clearly leads to the conclusion that the exemption provided is in respect of services relating to commercial training or ..... it is seen that the agreements between the appellant and their franchisees satisfy all the four requisites of the definition of 'franchise' as provided under section 65(47) of the act, and the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the said services.7. the appellants have also claimed the benefit of notification no.9 ..... under his brand name or trade name, in the same manner in which he himself was conducting the business. the definitions of franchisor under section 65(48) of the act, means "any person who enters into franchise with an franchisee and includes any associate of franchisor or a person designated by franchisor to enter .....

Protec Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)8STJ333CESTAT(Mum.)bai

..... an agent on payment of commission basis would not amount to providing services as 'clearing and forwarding agent' within the meaning of the definition of the expression under section 65(25) of the finance act, 1994. inasmuch as the issue stands decided by the larger bench decision of the tribunal, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential ..... of the principal, to the ultimate customer. consignment agent may not be even associated with the procurement of orders or does not directly deal with the sale purchase. he is acting on behalf of the principal and deals with the movement of the goods as per the direction of the principal. on the other hand commission agent is only concerned with .....

Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC178

..... . 20 lakhs. in addition, personal penalty of rs. 10.000/- each has been imposed upon the other two appellants in terms of the provision of section 112 of the customs act, 1962.2. as per facts on record appellants are engaged in importing and trading of various equipments, which are being supplied by them mainly to the ..... of this chapter, nor covered more specifically by a heading of any other chapter of the nomenclature, nor excluded by the operation of a legal note to section xvi or to this chapter. the principal electrical goods covered more specifically by other chapters are electrical machinery of chapter 84 and certain instruments and apparatus of chapter ..... to be classified under the said heading, even if they are solely and principally used with the broadcasting industry, by virtue of the said note 2(a) of section xvi. hence we are of the view that heading 84.71, specifically covers automatic data processing machines cannot be ignored and such goods cannot be classified under heading .....