Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.105 seconds)

Jul 26 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Shri Mohammed Rahiman

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-26-2004

..... imported in utter defiance of law and by way of fraud. the fraud perpetuated by shri mohammed rehiman in importation of the car is a very well planned and pre-mediated action. as per well thought out plan, shri mohammed rehiman has fabricated the documents of registration at dubai to not just mis-represent, but to totally mis-lead the authorities .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 2004 (TRI)

Vicco Products (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-06-2004

Reported in : (2004)(167)ELT86Tri(Mum.)bai

1. this application has been filed by "vicco products (bombay) pvt.ltd." seeking amendment of the memorandum of the captioned appeal. the appeal was filed by "vicco products (bombay) ltd." claiming to be successors of a partnership firm by name "vicco laboratories". it is stated in this application that an amendment of the name of the appellant is necessitated by certain amendment of the companies act, 1956. it is stated that on account of deletion of section 43a of the companies act, the word "private" was added to the name of the company with effect from 5-3-2001 and accordingly the company came to be called "vicco products (bombay) pvt. ltd.". it is further stated that "vicco laboratories" was a partnership firm which was dissolved under a deed of dissolution dated 31-3-86 and that all the assets and liabilities of the said firm had vested in the aforenamed company with effect from 1-4-86. the applicant wants to rely on the dissolution deed as also to amend certain pleadings in the appeal. the counsel for the company has prayed for leave to amend the memorandum of appeal as above. this prayer is vehemently opposed.2. it appears from the submissions of both sides that, at the earlier stages of litigation, the appellants held themselves out to be a partnership firm, which is claimed to have been dissolved as early as on 31-3-86. even at the time of preferring appeal to the commissioner (appeals), they did not claim that they were no longer a partnership firm but a limited .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2004 (TRI)

Kimberly-clark Lever Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-09-2004

1. appellants are manufacturers of diapers and clear the goods for sale to the depots of c & f agents m/s. hindustan lever ltd. (hcl). from these depots the goods are sold to wholesale buyers. in sept. 1997, for a "promotional pack" containing diapers of size medium, large and extra large, they declared a lower price than the prices for a normal pack.this "promotional pack" was with an offer of one 'pears soap' free, to the consumer, with each medium, large and extra large pack. this was indicated in print on the "promotional pack". duty was paid on such reduced prices declared. while effecting the sale of this "promotional pack" to the dealers, they were also sold and billed separately for the price of the pears soap being traded by them.2. valuation of the "promotional pack" is questioned by raising the reduced prices, to the price of corresponding packs. hence this appeal. a) the sale of the pears soap to the wholesale buyer is compulsory or not is to be established. if it is compulsory then the section 4(1) (a) price is not available for the promotional pack and resort to 'valuation rules' under section 4(1) (b) has to be made for comparable goods and value arrived at. if it is not compulsory then also. application of rule 5 of monetary value of additional consideration has to be applied and the amounts re-determined. the pl approvals, will, accordingly have to be made. the approvals as made cannot be upheld. b) the order is therefore required to be set aside and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2004 (TRI)

Shri Suresh Kumar Raisoni, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-2004

Reported in : (2004)(93)ECC129

1. the facts of the case are that, personal search of one shri jabbar singh thakur who entered the premises of m/s. k.k. chains, zaveri bazar, mumbai on 19.8.97 during the course of search of the above mentioned premises, resulted in recovery of 42 foreign marked gold biscuits valued at rs. 22,26,000/- which were seized under the reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation as per the provisions of customs act, 1962 as jabbar singh thakur could not produce any legal documents to prove the licit import of the gold or give any satisfactory explanation regarding the possession of the same.in his statement of the same date, he deposed that he was employed with one shri suresh jain (suresh kumar raisoni) of m/s. rajendra textiles, grant road, mumbai; that as directed by his employer he had visited m/s. k.k. chains to deliver foreign marked gold biscuits to shri phoolchand k. jain on 10-15 occasions; that he had delivered foreign marked gold biscuits to shri phoolchand k. jain; that on 19.8.97 in the afternoon shri suresh jain gave him gold biscuits in question and told him that they were smuggled and that he ( shri jabbar singh thakur) was to deliver them to shri phoolchand k jain; that he carried the gold with him and reached the premises of m/s. k.k. chains to hand it over to shri phoolchand k jain when the customs officers intercepted the same and seized them. summons was issued to shri suresh kumar raisoni on several dates but he failed to appear before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2004 (TRI)

Atul Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-13-2004

shri c. satapathy, member (t) 1. heard both sides. shri r.h. shah, learned manager excise of the appellant company submits that the appellants have been denied the modvat credit of varying amounts in respect of 13 different capital goods listed below:- electrical machinery &spares. necessary for supply of electricity to various machines 2003 ( 158) elt 161 (t) 2001(130) elt397(t) modvat rs.1095-00 2, pump is required for maintaining to control temperature of critical chemical conversion process 2002(149)elt 736 modvat rs.3,42,1 30=00 used in our reaction vessel which are lined with acid resisting tiles to resist highly corrosive chemical conditions 1. 1999 (109) elt 629 (t) (t)3. 1998 (101) elt 131 (t) 4. 1991(96) elt (1) - & high temperatures. this is also used as mortar for jointing acid resisting tiles inside the vessels, therefore, part-& parcel of equipments. these items are also refactory material which are used to project the machinery from the corrosion & are chemical binder used for fixing the acid, alkali & heat resistant bricks & tiles in reaction vessels & tiles in reaction vessels & equipments.modvat rs.2,87,541=00 essential accessories without these 2.2001 (137)elt 1341 accessories final products could not be manufactured. in certain process taking out of the processed material openly from processing vessel is not permissible because of the hazardous nature &, different tow or high temperatures under such circumstances pp/frp pipes/ elbows are used.4.1998(102) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (TRI)

Asha Handicrafts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

Reported in : (2004)(177)ELT303Tri(Mum.)bai

1. heard both sides. shri t.c. nair, learned consultant appearing for the appellants states that the preventive officers visited the appellant's factory on 03.01.1998 and made a case of alleged shortage and thereafter the appellants deposited an amount of rs. 70,000/- on 06.01.1998. a show cause notice was issued on 18.06.1998 demanding duty of rs. 86,348/- and also proposing to adjust an amount of rs. 70,000/- paid prior to the issue of show cause notice. the demanded duty was confirmed by the assistant commissioner on 26.02.1999 but the appellants succeeded before the commissioner (appeals). the order-in-appeal was issued on 26.06.2000 and the demand was dropped.the appellants filed a refund claim subsequently for refund amount of rs. 70,000/- on 02.09.2000. however, the same has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the same has been filed beyond six months from the date of payment and the payment was not made under protest.2. i have heard shri s.s. bhagat, learned s.d.r. who states that the refund is time barred having been filed beyond the period of six months and there having been no protest registered at the time of payment.shri bhagat further states that in view of the decisions of the apex court in the case of assistant collr. of cus. v/s anam electrical manufacturing co. - 1997 (90) e.l.t. 260 (s.c.) (para 1 ) and in the case of mafatlal industries v/s u.o.i. - 1997 (89) e.l.t. 247 (s.c.), since the amounts have not been paid under protest at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 2004 (TRI)

Shivam Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-02-2004

1. when this application came up for hearing before us on 20.9.2002 we heard the application for stay as well as the appeal. the learned dr submitted that the appeal itself is not maintainable since the order impugned was dismissed on the ground of delay and the period of delay was beyond what could have been condoned by the commissioner (appeals) under the relevant provisions. we, therefore, dismissed the application for stay as well as the appeal. the order was dictated in the court.later it was found that in the original of the final order one of us had not signed. under these circumstances, the case is posted again for hearing today.2. when the case is called there is no representation on behalf of the appellant/applicant. shri hitesh shah, learned sdr appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted that commissioner (appeals) dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that it was beyond the period which could be condoned by him under the relevant provisions. in the light of the larger bench decision of this tribunal in maithan ceramic limited v. cce jamshedpur 2002(145) elt 394(t) the above submission of the learned dr has only to be accepted.3. the appellant has a further contention that as a matter of fact the appeal was wrongly filed by the appellant before divisional office on 26.2.2001 and if that be so there was only a delay of one day as the order in original was received by the appellant only on 24.11.2000.this contention has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hari Vishnu Packaging

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-07-2004

Reported in : (2004)(173)ELT280Tri(Mum.)bai

1. heard both sides. the impugned order in original was passed by the joint commissioner dropping a demand of rs. 3,91,275/- but imposing a penalty of rs. 3,000/-. the said order was reviewed by the commissioner and an appeal was filed before the commissioner (appeals) by the deputy commissioner as authorized by the commissioner who reviewed the order.the commissioner (appeals) has rejected the department's appeal without going into the merits of the case on the sole ground that the authorization given to the deputy commissioner to file appeal is not a valid authorization. while passing the said order he has relied on the decision of the tribunal in the case of dhampur sugar mills co. ltd. v.collector of c.ex., meerut - 1999 (108) e.l.t. 498 (tribunal). this appeal has been filed, against the impugned order passed by the commissioner (appeals), by the deputy commissioner as authorized by the commissioner. the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the department is whether the authorization given to the deputy commissioner to file an appeal before commissioner (appeals) against an adjudication order passed by the joint commissioner was a valid authorization. incidentally, there is no challenge to filing of this appeal to the tribunal against the order of commissioner (appeals) though the same has been filed by a deputy commissioner authorized by the commissioner.2. shri a.k. saxena, learned j.d.r. appearing for the department and shri n.s. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Metro Steel Rolling Mills, Konark

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-07-2004

1. all these appeals filed by the revenue cover the same issue and are being disposed of by this common order.2. after hearing both sides, we find that the issue on merits in this case i.e. the applicability of notification no. 206/63 and subsequent notification no. 208/83 as regards ship breaking scrap used as raw material for rerolling is covered in favour of the assessees by the decision in l.g. industries 2000 (148) elt 43 as approved by the supreme court reported in 2003 (157) elt a 209.3. as regards the finding of the commissioner (appeals) and his dismissal of the revenue's appeal filed before him, on the grounds that the original order was passed by the additional commissioner and the order or revenue was a direction given to the deputy commissioner to file these appeals before the commissioner (appeals) which were not permissible was as held by the tribunal in the case of dhampur sugar mill co. ltd. v. cce 1999 (108) elt 498. therefore it was held and appeals filed by the assistant commissioner/deputy commissioner when the subject orders-in-original were passed by the additional commissioner were dismissed. hence these appeals.4. it is found that the question has been well settled in the case of dhampur sugar mill co. ltd. v. cce 1999 (108) elt 498, wherein in para 7 the tribunal has observed as under: 7. we have considered the submissions made by both the sides. two questions arise for decision in this appeal. one is whether the direction given by the collector to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 2004 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-14-2004

1. in this case the assistant commissioner had sanctioned the refund of rs. 50,16,829.26 to the respondents herein by way of credit in their r.g. 23a part-ii account, being the refund of duty paid on methane at the rate of 20% and the difference from rs. 262.50 per m.t. for methane cleared to their vadodara unit, and also methane cleared for captive consumption in the manufacture of other final products, on the ground that their claim for benefit of notification no. 276/67-ce had been accepted. by the tribunal's final order no. 317/95-c dt. 30.10.95, holding that the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable for the reason that the amount was not recovered by the assesses; the commissioner (appeals) upheld the adjudication order; the tribunal disposed of the revenue's appeals by its order dt. 23.6.2000 (order no.c-ii/1897-98/wzb/2000 dt.5.7.2000) by allowing the appeal of the revenue's; against this order the assessee filed an application for rectification of mistake which was dismissed vide order no.c-i/3005/wzb/2000 dt. 6.9.2000. the assessee preferred special civil appeal no. 96/2001 before the hon'ble gujarat high court which vide its order dt. 23.2.2002 set aside the orders of the tribunal and directed the tribunal to decide the matter afresh, in the light of the supreme court decision in the case of u.o.i. and ors. v. solar pesticides pvt.ltd. [2000 (89) ecr 11 (s.c.)]. this is how the appeal has come for hearing before us.2. we have heard both sides, in the solar .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //