Mumbai Court February 1998 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prudential Polyweb (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT138Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of Collector (Appeals), Indore whereunder he allowed appeal of the respondent whereby the respondent was granted Modvat credit. The facts appears to be that the respondents were engaged in manufacture of HDPE/Polypropylene woven Sacks/Bags falling within Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff and also availing of Modvat credit. It would appear that for the inputs HDPE on the basis of Bill of Entry rotation No. 1525, dated 22-8-1991 they have claimed Modvat credit. It bore not only the said rotation No. but also particulars of Bill of Lading No.JEBE-05, dated 13-8-1991. In the RG 23A Part I, entry No. 14 stated that the duty paying documents were referred as Bill of Lading No. 05.The RG 23A Part II state that Bill of Lading No. 5, dated 13-8-1991. It is contended by the department that if the Bill of Entry No. 5862 is the correct number how could they refer to B/L 5/1991.2. As against this the ld. Counsel for the respon...

Himatrao Ukha Mali and Others Vs. Popat Devram Patil and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR415; 1998(3)BomCR680

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. One Ukha Hiralal Mali was a tenant in respect of land admeasuring 5 Hectares 13 Ares located in Gat No. 33/1, S. No, 21/2 of village Lon, Tq. Amalner. District Jalgaon and the original owner of the said land was Shri Zaverchand Laxmichand. It appears that Ukha Hiralal Mali entered into an agreement of sale with the present respondent in respect of the said land for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. The tenant received the consideration and receipt to that effect as well as possession of the land by the vendee was issued. It is pertinent to note that the agreement of sale was registered and the possession of the subject land was handed over to respondent No. 1. Ukha Hiralal Mali filed R.C.S. No. 96/71 before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Amalner and claimed possession of the said land from respondent No. 1. The said suit came to be dismissed by order dated 20-12-1973. In the meanwhile, when the suit was pending certificate of ownership under section 32-G of the Bombay ...

Hamid Dawal Bargir Vs. Mohamedan Eduction Society

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR900

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1st August, 1987, passed by the III rd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1983. That appeal was filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 11th November, 1982, passed in R.C.S. No. 1161 of 1977, by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur. That civil suit was also filed by the respondent Mohamedan Education Society claiming to be the owner of the house bearing C.T.S. No. 1035 situated in 'E' Ward, Kolhapur, and that the petitioner is a tenant in that house. The landlord claimed decree of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. The trial Court, however, recorded finding against the landlord and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the landlord, however, the Appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passe...

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Bom)192; [1998]231ITR1(Bom)

B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference in compliance with the directions of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion :'1. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not deciding ground No. 5, viz., whether Rule 46A applied to the present case ?2. Whether Rule 46A had any applicability to the present case ?3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax that under Rule 46A(1), (2), (3), the evidence produced before him could not be admitted on the records ?4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1, 43, 520 being loan from K. Commercial Company and Champaklal Dalpatrai ?'2. The assessee is an individual. This reference pertains to the assessment of her income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), for the assessment y...

Glencore (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998LC3(Bombay); 1999(105)ELT23(Bom)

P.C. Radhakrishnan, J1. Rule is made returnable forthwith in both the Petitions. Heard parties.2. In Writ Petition No. 18 of 1998 the Petitioners are the consignors who had exported 125 Metric Tonnes of Copper Wire Bars from Rotterdam (Belgium) to Nhava Sheva in favour of the consignee namely Respondent No. 5, Sharp Menthol India Pvt. Ltd. on 22nd June, 1997. It appears that the consignee, inspite of repeated notices from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Authorities, did not bother to clear the goods lying in the port. Ultimately, the Port Trust Authorities, after complying with the provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trust Act, held an auction of the aforesaid Copper Wire Bars on 26th December, 1997 wherein the Respondent No. 4 was the successful bidder. The Petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 18 of 1998 namely M/s. Glencore (India) Pvt. Ltd. had not received payment from the consignee and after having come to know of the said auction rushed to this Court and obtained a sta...

Matulya Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC736Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both the sides the delay in filing the supplementary appeal is condoned as per usual practice since the main appeal had been filed on time.2. The Id. Counsel Shri M.H. Patil for the applicants submitted that the stay application is for waiver of pre-deposit of sum of Rs. 58,823.46 and the Id. Counsel further pointed out that the dispute is regarding valuation of yarn cleared for home consumption, whether or not the cost of sizing process can be included in the value for the purpose of assessment. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of J.K. Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Union of India and Ahmedabad Manufacturing Calico Spinning v. Union of India and respectively, the Id. Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the yarn which emerges at the spinning stage, duty is payable thereon and it was submitted by the Id. Counsel that the duty payable on the unsized yarn and sized yarn was cleared and hence the lower authorities have wrongly held levy...

Sterlite Inds. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee received 12 consignments of copper rods. In each case, on receipt of the rods in its factory it filed a declaration in Form D 3 indicating the duty which it said had been paid on the consignments and the [gate] pass number stating that the rods were received for reconditioning. It cleared these goods from its factory without payment of duty. Notice was issued to it demanding duty on the ground that since remaking amounted to manufacture of copper rods. Notice was issued in May 1992 for the goods cleared in July 1991 to October, 1991 by invoking the extended period as per Section 11A alleging that the goods were misdeclared as rejected goods brought for reconditioning.2. The Collector did not accept the contentions of the assessees with regard to limitation or the contention that no new goods were manufactured. He confirmed the demand holding that there was misdeclaration of facts and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence this appeal.3. The representative of the appe...

Harilal Tulsibhai Gohil Vs. Abdul Habib Abdul Rahman

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR691; 1998(4)BomCR516; 1998(2)MhLj859

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The present respondent -plaintiff issued notice dated 23-9-1986 to the petitioner about termination of tenancy and subsequently Regular Civil Suit No. 184 of 1986 came to be filed before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar. Issues were framed including the issues regarding default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement of suit premises and the defendant having acquired any premises. The suit premises consists of area 14 x 35 ft. in a building on C.T.S. No. 1071 and the said building consisted of two storeys. The present petitioner acquired the premises on the ground-floor on rent basis. It has come on record that the suit premises were being used for residential as well as commercial purpose. The learned trial Judge answered the relevant issues against the present petitioner and in Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1996 the findings recorded by the trial Court have been confirmed. During the pendency of the suit before the trial Court the building ca...

Cce Vs. Crown Tobacco Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(77)LC394Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR.2. Respondent was manufacturing "slides" and supplying the same to I.T.C. Ltd., the consideration being job charges by I.T.C. Ltd. Three show cause notices were issued in respect of different periods alleging that the respondent had not included manufacturing profit in the assessable value and proposing demand of differential duty on the element of manufacturing profit estimated at 10%. Though respondent opposed the notices, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demands and his order has been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that he has taken a view against the Department in another appeal on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC) : 1989 (21) ECR 1 (SC) : ECR C 1347 SC. This order is now challenged by the Collector of Central Excise.3. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR contended that no evidence has been produced to show that job cha...

Shrita Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT978Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This order is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs suspending the Custom House Agents licence granted to the appellant.2. The reason for the suspension of the licence indicates that the appellant sublet its licence to partner of M/s J.B. Cargo Forwarders.The order narrates that the partner, J.B. Vaz had admitted that he received export cargo clearance work in his firm's name and got it cleared through the appellant and that his firm charges the bill for export clearance to the exporter and not to the appellant. So far the appellant had not charged him for work done from April, 1997 onwards.The date of his statement is not known but is apparently some time in August, since the Commissioner's order was passed on the 19th September. The order narrates that letters of authority relating to clearances from two exporters namely Asha Handicraft Association and Greaves Ltd. for clearance of export cargo were addressed to J.B. Cargo Forwarders and not to the appellant and that t...