Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat ahmedabad Page 54 of about 537 results (0.252 seconds)

Jun 26 2006 (TRI)

Omega Pharma and Hema Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2006)LC373Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Out of these four appeals, two have been filed by the Applicant- Commissioner gainst, lower Appellate Authority's order dropping demand of interest. The other two appeals have been filed by the appellant-manufacturers M/s. Hema Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Omega Pharma. There is an adjournment request from M/s. Omega Pharma on ' the ground that the department's appeal has not been received by them.However, pray for adjournment is declined as we are of the view that the appeals themselves can be decided without their presence.2. Both the appeals filed by the appellant-manufacturers relate to dutiability of batch analysis samples and samples retained in the factory as per the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945. We find that the issue of dutiability of samples retained in the factory is no longer res integra in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Dabur India Ltd. , wherein it has been held that the manufacturers can preserve samples ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2006 (TRI)

Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2006)(110)ECC579

1. Heard both sides. The appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) who has been allowed imported fabrics duty free for manufacture of trousers (both adults and boys). The impugned order demands duty of Rs. 17,44,818.23 (Rupees Seventeen lacs, Forty Four Thousand, Eight Hundred Eighteen and Twenty three paise) on the ground that the appellant has consumed excess fabric measuring 32185.06 Sq.Mtrs. over and above the quantity allowed as per Input-Output norms. In addition, a penalty of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five lacs) has also been imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants states that while broducing the trousers, the unit also consumed extra quantity of fabrics as wastage and the same has not been allowed by the adjudicating Commissioner. In support, he produced a copy of a letter dated 18.01.2001, issued by the Joint Development Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone, which states that pending fixat...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 2006 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Maulik Enterprise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

1. Heard both sides. In the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has allowed benefit of Notification No. 23/98 in respect of the impugned goods, namely "Insoles or midsoles and sheets therefor", which evidently are used in the leather/footwear industry. He has also held that no end use certificate is required in respect of such goods as the nature of the goods is such that they are not capable of being used in some other industry.2. Considering the nature of the goods under import, we are of the view that the conclusion of the lower appellate authority is justified and the same does not call for any interference. The department's appeal is, therefore, dismissed....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1999 (TRI)

Amar Hasmukhbhai Shah Vs. Cce and C

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (1999)(84)LC932TriAhmedabad

1. In this case the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed on the partner of M/s. Aspiaf Textile Mills who have been held liable to duty on the ground that they had clandestinely removed processed fabrics without payment of duty leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of special Importance) Act, 1957. The appellant has deposited the money as evidenced by challan dt. 28.3.1995.1 find on hearing Shri K.L. Ramteke the Ld. JDR, that it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1998 (79) ECR 553 (Del) that the provisions relating to confiscation and penalty which are contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be imported into the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957, and I also noted that decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. v.Union of India 1994 (52) ECR 644 (Guj) is not directly applicable for the reason that it is rendered in the...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1999 (TRI)

Jayanti Purshottum Macchi and Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (1999)(84)LC746TriAhmedabad

1. Those two stay applications arise out of the same impugned order and are therefore taken up for disposal vide this common order. On 26.12.1990 silver slabs placed in the shallow water were noticed by the people at low tide near Sorathwad village. The Custom Officers recovered 46 silver ingots. On 30.12.1990 an abandoned vessel named 'Chanchalprasad' bearing No. UMR-520 was seized at Kalia Port, which was about 10 kms. away from the spot where the contraband silver was landed. The registered owner of Chanchalprasad claimed to have sold the same to one Akbar S. Haidi about 4 years ago and claimed that he did not have any knowledge of the present ownership of the vessel. The first appellant namely Jayanti P. Macchi was summoned on several occasions from 29.12.1990. On 16.6.1991 he was intercepted, his statements were recorded. In his statements Jayanti P. Macchi claimed to have met one Kasam Adam Kaba. This Adam was in possession of one vessel named 'Allah Hafiz' bearing Register No. ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1999 (TRI)

Cc (P) Vs. Rajkot Engg. Association

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (1999)(84)LC784TriAhmedabad

This is the department's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dt. 31.5.1996 of the Collector (Appeals) Ahmedabad praying for setting aside the same.1. The facts of the case are the respondents imported 10.450 M.T. of Metallurgical Coke per M.V. AN-XIN-JIANG at port of Navlakhi Port and cleared the same under Bill of Entry Nos. F-12 to F-21 dt. 19.6.1991, valued at Rs. 23,87,912.82 CIF and the assessable value of Rs. 24,95,602/-. Under the each bill of entry 1045 M.T. were cleared. The "Coke with phosphorus content" of 0.035% or below, when imported into India for manufacture of Pig-iron was exempted of the Customs duty as in excess of 25% ad valorem, vide Notification No. 35/90-Customs dated 20.3.1990 as amended. The whole of Auxiliary duty of Customs was exempted on Sr. No. 17, Chapter No. 27. Coke with Phosphorus content of 0.035% or below for manufacture of Pig-iron, vide Notification dated 14.3.1991 under No. 23/91-Customs, as amended. The whole of additional duty of ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1999 (TRI)

Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (1999)(84)LC805TriAhmedabad

1. These appeals are filed against the decision of the Additional Collector in order No. 64/90 dated 28.4.1990 praying for setting aside penalty on them. The goods involved is man-made fabrics under Chapter 54. In the impugned order penalty of Rs. 8,000/- is imposed on M/s, Balakrishna Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 5,000/- each on M/s. Orient Fabrics and on Devendra Kumar Shrinathprasad Goenka partner of S.R.Goenka under Rule 209A, and on others Rule 173Q. The duty of Rs. 32,481/- is confirmed on M/s. S.R. Goenka which is already paid. The man-made fabrics are confiscated. The appellants have requested for decision on merits in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India wherein it is held that there is no provision in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957 for imposing any penalty at the relevant point of time.2. Learned DR Shri K.L. Ramteke, has conceded that the penalty cannot be imposed on ...

Tag this Judgment!


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