Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

thermax Surface Coating Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT356Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After allowing the application for early hearing of the above appeal on the ground that the issue in dispute stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.2. Pursuant to the contract entered with M/s. Godrej GE Appliances Ltd. the appellant herein set up a paint shop (Spray Pre-treatment set up) in the factory premise of that company to be used by it for manufacture of paint. The components were purchased by the appellants from the market and assembled them at site, resulting in the emergence of the Spray Pretreatment set up. Notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants had manufactured two Spray Pre treatment set ups classifiable under Heading 84.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and demanding duty at the rate applicable under the Tariff Act and also proposing imposition of penalty. In the order which is under challenge before the Tribunal, the Commissioner con...

Ambajogai Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,23,726/- and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. The duty demand was confirmed on the basis of the cost of manufacture of molasses as opined by Chief Sugar Technologist VDS Institute in his letter dated 31.01.95. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) along with application for waiver of pre-deposit. An interim order was passed directing the appellant to furnish a bond for the full amount of duty back by an equivalent amount of Bank Guarantee. The appellant submits that although the order was issued on 28.2.01 to the appellant C/o their counsel, it was actually issued only on 3.4.01 and received by the counsel on 9.4.01. However, even prior to the receipt of the interim order, the Appellate Authority by his order dated 30.3.01 received by the appellant on 17.5.01 dismissed the appeal for non compliance of the ord...

Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Icici Ltd. (Debenture Trustees) and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR608; (2002)2BOMLR915; [2003]113CompCas466(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj322

A.P. Shah, J.1. As these appeals give vise to common questions of law and facts and arise out of a common order passed by the learned single Judge, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The Baroda, Rayon Corporation Ltd., which is the appellant in all the three appeals, is a company having its mills at Surat in the State of Gujarat. The appellant is original defendant No. 1. Respondent No. 1 ICICI Ltd, has filed a suit in its capacity as trustees of the debenture-holders for recovery of money for the benefit of the debenture-holders in respect of certain debentures issued by the appellant. Respondent No. 1 has also sought enforcement of the securities in the form of mortgage and hypothecation of immovable/movable properties which had been mortgaged/hypothecated in favour of respondent No. 1 as the trustees of the debenture-holders. A notice of motion was filed by respondent No. 1 in the said, suit and by an order dated 14-2-2001, the Court Receiver was appointed in respect...

Krishna Kashinath Patil Vs. S. Mohandas Kamath

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR353; 2002(2)MhLj924

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17-11-1990, passed by the Additional District Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1989, confirming the order passed below Exh. 1 in Regular, Darkhast No. 1 of 1985 dated 25th January, 1989 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasai, whereby Darkhast Application No. 1 of 1985 was dismissed holding it to be not maintainable. FACTS 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under:--The petitioner is a landlord of the plot of land situate at Agashi, Taluka Vasai, District Thane. There was a structure standing on the said piece of land, bearing House No. 185. The same has been in possession of the respondent as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The suit premises is governed by provisions of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act' for short).3. The petitioner herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 19...

Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR700]; (2002)ILLJ651Bom

1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. The case of the Petitioner-Union (in Writ Petition No. 7541 of 2000) is that the persons employed in the canteen run by respondent No. 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., are employees of the Respondent-Corporation. This is sought to be supported by the fact that providing a canteen is a requirement of the terms and conditions of service, and, secondly, that the extent of supervision and control by the Respondent-Corporation itself makes them employees of the Respondent-Corporation. It is not their case that the canteen is a statutory canteen under Section 46 of the Factories Act.3. The question as to whether a canteen is established in view of the terms and conditions of service would require examination of further evidence. Similarly, the question as to whether the Respondent-Corporation directly supervises the functioning of the employees of the said canteen is again a question of fact. The Respondent-Corporation in their affidavit-in-reply h...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. Hari Om Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT236Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The single appeal filed by the Commissioner names as respondent Hari Om Textiles and two others. Notice had been issued to the department asking to file two more appeals. This has not been done. This one appeal therefore deemed to be against Hari Om Textiles, the respondent first named in the appeal.2. The question before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order impugned before him was whether viscose filament yarn would come within the term "synthetic yarn" occurring in notification 12/98, which specified the goods to which the provisions of chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962 should apply. The Collector has held that viscose yarn is classified in the tariff as artificial filament yarn and not a synthetic yarn and therefore it is not synthetic yarn for the purpose of chapter IVA of the Act. He has therefore set aside the confiscation of the goods yarn under Section 11B of the Act as also the penalty imposed of Rs. 1,000/-.3. The appeal contends that the object of the provisions wa...

Swati Enterprises, Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications are for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty indicated below:Swati Enterprises Rs. 29,360/- Rs. 3,500/-Overseas Engineers Rs. 83,032/- Rs. 25,000/-Patel Field Marshall Inds. Rs. 3,11,744/- Rs. 30,500/- 2. Each of the three applicants is engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines and internal combustion engines. Each of them is also engaged in the manufacture of centrifugal pumps, consisting of the pump and a diesel engine coupled together on a common base. The applicants utilised the diesel engines that they have manufactured in the manufacture of these centrifugal pumps. Entry No. 186 of the table to notification 4/97 exempts goods other than those specified therein form payment of duty if they are used within the factor of production in the manufacture of specified power driven pumps primarily designed for handling water. Diesel engines are not among the specified goods excluded against the entry 186 and centrifugal pumps are specified as one of the power dr...

HipolIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing stay applications, I find that the issue is covered and therefore with consent of both sides, proceed to take up the appeals, after waiving deposit.2. The appeals are against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the orders of the Assistant Commissioner appealed before him that modvat credit was wrongly taken by the appellant, but setting aside the penalty that he had imposed.3. I shall consider each of the grounds on which the credit has been denied. The first is that the credit of Rs. 5,12,865/- was taken on gate passes which were issued prior to 31.3.1994 to a person other than the appellant and thereafter endorsed in its favour. The Assistant Commissioner has relied upon the provisions of entry 10 of the table to notification 16/94 to say that this is not duty paying document. The Tribunal had before it the same issue for consideration in Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 620. It concluded that no objection can be taken to raise aga...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gyro Lab Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Notices issued to Gyro Lab Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, proposed denial of the modvat credit that it had taken on the ground that the invoices on which it took credit were issued by unregistered dealers and therefore not valid. The Assistant Collector, in his order, denied the credit on a different ground, that the invoices were not in accordance with the proforma prescribed by the authority.2. The assessee appealed the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, noting that the basis for the denial by the Assistant Collector of the credit was not specified in the notice issued to the assessee. This order is being appealed by the department.3. The department's appeal again emphasizes that the invoices do not contain such particulars as name and address of the jurisdictional Collector, division, range etc. and name of the supplier. These grounds, as I have noted, were not in the show cause notice issued to the assessee and cannot now be pressed into service. I therefore see ...

Remi International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of modvat credit that it had taken on the ground that it was taken beyond six months after the date of issue of duty paying document, prior to the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G. Adjudicating upon this notice, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty demanded in the notice and imposed penalty. On appel from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the amount of duty payable and confirmed the penalty. Hence this appeal.3. The primary contention that the appellant had taken in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the credit was taken, not under Rule 57G but under Rule 57H. There is no time limit in the latter rule for taking credit, and the time limit contained in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G will not apply to the credit taken Rule 57H. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered this submission. He has devoted himself only to consider the applicability of Rule 173H. This is possible. In the written submi...