Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Veronica Laboratories Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, I find that the issue having been settled in law, the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. I do so on granting waiver of predeposit as preyed for in both cases.2. These appeals are filed by different appellants. However, the ground on which the Lower Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeals, are the same. These two appeals are, therefore, being disposed of vide this common order.3. In these cases, the present appellants had filed appals before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith the applications for waiver of predeposit of duties and penalties. The Commissioner in identical orders directed them to make certain predeposits in terms of Section 35(F) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since in neither case, the appellants had complied with the directions, the Commissioner dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the present appeals.4. In the Appeal Memoranda, both appellants pray for relief on merits.Shri C.M. Upadhyay, Learne...

Sanjeevan Medical Foundation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT311Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 6,53,200/-, Rs 2.00 lakhs adjudged for redemption of confiscated goods, and penalty of Rs 1.00 lakh imposed on the applicant.2. The applicant is a medical institution, and the duty has been demanded from it on the ground that the benefit of exemption contained in notification 64/88 would not be available to the goods imported by it for the reason that one of the conditions subject to which the exemption is available, that free treatment should be provided by the hospital for 40% of out door patients, has not been complied with. The Commissioner has relied upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Medical Relief Society of South Canara v. Union of India 1999 (111) ELT 327 in support of his finding that the "free treatment" referred to in the notification included providing medication to the patients, and mere production of documents and investigation has not been done. The Commissioner has concluded that evidence has not b...

Ramson Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For the purpose of hearing the appeal, the predeposit of duty of Rs. 5,74,686/- is waived and as recovery there of stayed and the appeal is itself to taken up for hearing.2. The appellants have filed written submission. It is their grievance that although the Commissioner (Appeals) might have issued notice for personal hearing on 18.12.01, such notice was never received by them and hence the order suffers from the of contravention of the principles of natural justice. It is their further submission that the reasons for denial of credit in the impugned order are entirely different from the reasons in the show cause notice. I have perused the records. There is substance in the plea that the order has been passed on grounds at variance from the show cause notice. In the notice denial of credit taken on certain items is proposed on the ground that they are not Capital goods within meaning of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rule, while the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied modvat credit ...

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT954Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants had taken credit on "Synthetic Resin Polyvinyl Alchohol" falling under Chapter 39. The declared input was classifiable under Chapter 38. Holding that the input was not declared, credit was got reversed and the later claim for refund of the credit reversed was also denied. Appellants rely upon Larger Bench judgment reported in 2000/121/ELT 227 (KAMAKHYA STEELS (P) LTD.). On perusal, I find that it does not be relate to the issues on hand. I do not find merit in the claim that what was reversed was deposit of duty and therefore, was entitled to refund [(2001) (132) ELT480 (Tribunal)].2. I, however, find that the following case becomes precedent for this appeal.3. The Tribunal of the order reported in 1996-83 ELT (641) (Mukesh Engineering Industries) held that where input was not specifically declared, but where that input had nexus with the declared input, MODVAT was allowable. The second relevant judgment is in the case of Delta Factors Ltd. 1996 84(ELT) 151. In this ...

Avanti Conductors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants here in availed Modvat credit of Rs. 2,06,591/- on Copper wire rods received from M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., under invoice dt. 20.12.95 on the strength of the xerox copy of the 5th copy of the invoice. The authorities below disallowed the credit on the ground that the document based on which credit was taken was not a valid duty paid document, hence this appeal. I have heard both the sides. The explanation of the appellant is that bothe the original and duplicate copy of the invoices were 1st in transit and the Suprintendant of Central Excise had carried out physical verification of the consignment based on the 5th copy and certified triplicate copy of the invoice and therefore credit should not be denied for technical reasons. This explanation is however not sufficient copy of the invoice as valid document for taking Modvat credit. Rule 57G(2) provides that no modvat credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received under a cover of invoice issued under Rule 50A...

Paschim Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants were not present. On perusal of the facts the appeal was admitted for hearing and was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 26,716/-.2. The appellants have taken modvat credit on the strength of the invoices which were not in their name. The Assistant Commissioner had confirmed the reversion of the Modvat credit on this ground. The assessee filed an appeal. It was claimed that the assessees were under "lease agreement" with another unit in whose name the invoices were drawn. Substantial case law was cited before the Commissioner. The Commissioner after recording the submissions of the assessee disposed off the appeal before him in the following words: "I find from the above that the finding of the adjudicating authority denying the modvat credit has been correctly passed and that the submissions of the appellants are unsustainable. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected." 4. The job of an appellate authority is to ...

M.M. Silk Mills and Harshvardhan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Pre-deposit of Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on M/s. M.M. Silk Mills and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Katiyal is waived and recovery stayed and the appeals are taken up for hearing. The greivance of M/s. M.M. Silk Mills is that the submissions made by them in the appeal memorandum before Commissioners (Appeals) have not been considered by the lower appellate authority who has also not given them any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. I have perused the order and find that it does not contain any reference to notice of hearing being issued to the appellant, Therefore since the claim of the appellant that they were not heard has substance, I see no option but to set aside the impugned order and send the matter back to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard in person and explaming their case....

NavIn Flourine Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of order of the Commissioner of the Central Excise & Customs, Surat who has disallowed Modvat credit of Methylene Dichloride and Glycol for the reason that these inputs are used as cooling medium of machinery, and are not inputs for the final product of the appellant. Credit on Mafron gases captively used as cooling agent is also being denied for the same reason. The impugned order also denies modvat credit of that portion of Caustic Soda used captively for the system in Air Pollution control Unit by holding that the Air Pollution Control unit is not a part of the manufacturing system.2. On hearing both the sides and noting that the same issue was involved in the assesses own case under E/33/93/BOM disposed of by order No. 597/98 dt. 24.02.98 holding that the credit is available on all these items, I set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal....

Bharatkumar Sakhsaria Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD512(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVI, Mumbai, dt. 7th March, 2001. for the block period 1st April, 1987 to 8th Dec., 1997). The main issue for consideration in this case is regarding the application of the provisions of Section 249(4) of the IT Act.2. The assessee is an individual sharebroker. In this case the search under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted in the office and residential premises of the assessee on 8th Dec., 1997. In response to the notice under Section 158BC which was issued on 28th Oct., 1998, the assessee. filed return of income on 27th Nov., 1998. The return filed was not in time as has been stated by the AO in his order. The assessee declared total undisclosed income at Rs. 10 lakhs. This undisclosed income has been declared for the whole block period, i.e., 1st April, 1987, to 8th Dec., 1997. The assessee did not pay any tax on the undisclosed income. The assessee, however, indicated in his return that Rs...

Bapurao Irbhan Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1280

J.N. Patel, J.1. In Session Trial No. 156/1995, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, by his judgment and order dated 31-7-1996, convicted the appellant for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for two weeks. The appellant has appealed against his conviction.2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 16-6-1995, at about 3 p.m., the appellant committed murder of his wife Sau. Lalita, by means of 'Gandasa' (weapon used for cutting sugarcane), in the hut where they were residing, which was situated in the field of Advocate Gattani at village Deothana within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Akot. After committing the said offence, the appellant-accused Bapurao Irbhan Tayade went to the Police Station, Akot and lodged the report Exh. 22 on the basis of which the. Police registered offence under Section 302, I.P.C., vide Crime No....