Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Zenith Tins Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the appeal itself finally. I therefore allow the present stay application and proceed to dispose of the appeal.3. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in adjudication of a show cause notice issued to the appellant, passed an order disallowing modvat credit to the extend of Rs. 38,982/- to the party and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 38,000/-. That was an ex-parte order. The party preferred appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order to the Commissioner (Appeals). They also filed a stay application therein.In both the appeal and the stay application they had given their mailing address as follows: Which is different from the mailing address given in the memorandum of the present appeal before the Tribunal. It appears that the lower appellate authority issued notice of hearing in stay application to the party at the above address, but the latter did not receive the noti...

Navjeen Synthetics and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1026Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Adjudicating on a notice issued on these appellants, of whom Navjeevan Synthetics is a processor of fabrics and Madhusudan Reshamwala, a partner, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on the manufacturer and the partner. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the before the Commissioner (Appeals) both these persons sought to settle the issue under the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. An order was issued by the designated authority, determining the amount to be payable by the manufacturer under the Scheme. The order directed deposit of this amount within 30 days. This condition was not complied with. Consequently, the certificate under the Scheme was not issued.The Asst Commissioner therefore proceeded to adjudicate on the notice issued to these persons, and confirmed the proposal in the notice for duty, and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) having dismissed the appeal against this order...

M/S. Sahaj Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Jurisdictional Assistant Collector had allowed modvat credit taken of Rs. 27,019/- on input by the applicant during February and March, 1991. The order of the Assistant Collector was reviewed and in pursuance thereof the department filed appeal with the Commissioner was reviewed and in pursuance thereof the department filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority allowed the department's appeal. Hence the captioned appeal before the Tribunal by the Assessee.3. The Learned Counsel for the applicant prays for admitting the appeal and staying the departmental proceedings in relation to the modvat credit on the ground that the issue involved in the appeal itself stand squarely covered in favour of the assessee by decisions of the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel has cited the Decision in S.B.S. Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs 1990 (45) ELT 701 and also the order passed in a reference application of the department in the case o...

Mahesh Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant, a processor of textile fabrics on the ground that in determining the capacity of the stender under the Hot Air Stender Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, the length of the galleries is to be taken into account.2. The question as to whether the length of such galleries should form part of the capacity of the chambers in the hot air stender was referred to the larger bench of the Tribunal as a result of conflicting decisions on this issue. The larger bench in its decision in Sangam Processors Bilwara Ltd vs. CCE 2001 (42) RLT 429 has held that such galleries are not equipment for aiding the process of heat setting or drying of fabric referred to in the Explanation 1 below rule 3 of the Rules. It has confirmed the view of the Tribunal in RM Gupta Textile P.Ltd vs. CCE 2000 (40) RLT 234 that such galleries are not to be taken into account while calcu...

Archana Industries Transformers Vs. Archana Industries Transformers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1390Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The two appeals by Archana Industrial Transformers P.Ltd.(hereinafter archana), and Vidarbha Transformers P.Ltd (hereinafter vidarbha), and the apeal by the Commissioner are against the common order of the Commissioner of Cental excise, Nagpur. In that order, the Commissioner has partly confirmed the proposal in the common notice issued to Archana, Vidarbha and Nippon Transformers P. Ltd (hereinafter Nippon). He has confirmed the duty of Rs. 17.30 lakhs demanded from Archana but dropped the demand for duty demanded from Nippon and imposed penalty on Archana and Vidarbha. Archana and Vidarbha have appealed against the part of the order demanding duty from them and imposing penalty.The Commissioner in his appeal challenges the dropping of the proceedings against Nippon.2. Each of these three units had been licensed for manufacture of electric transformers. In May 1990, Vidarbha and Nippon applied for permission under rule 57F(2) to send out to Archana "transformer assembly without co...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. CamlIn Ltd. (Stationery Div)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the order of the Asst. Commissioner before him is in excess of the powers specified for adjudication in circular 3/92-CX-6 dated 14.2.92 of the Board and remanding the matter for adjudication.The appeal contends that this order is wrong. The Board's circular, which specified monetary limits for adjudication, excluded cases of approval of price list. The demand in this case has been issued as a consequence of the approval of price list and therefore falls within this exclusion. The Commissioner's order is therefore incorrect.2. The Board's circular prescribed "following monetary limits for adjudication of Central Excise cases other than the cases relating to approval of classification and price lists." The limit for the Asst.Collector where duty was involved was Rs. 50,000/-. There is no dispute that the duty involved in each show cause notice exceeds this amount.The Asst. Collector's order records that the s...

Shri Kishor Govind Gohil @ Kishor Haddi Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)661; 2001BomCR(Cri)716; (2001)2BOMLR375

Vishnu Sahal, J.1. Through this criminal writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Kishor Govind Gohil @ Kishor Haddi has Impugned the order dated 11.7.2000, passed by the first respondent, Shri M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers. Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (No. LVA of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 11.7.2000, was served on the detenu on 15.7.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 'B') would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R., namely, C. R. No. 53/2000 under sections 387 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 21.3.2000, filed by one ...

Sou. Kalpana Madhav Kirave and anr. Vs. the Chief Officer, Bhor Munici ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom217; 2001(3)BomCR109; (2001)2BOMLR593; 2001(2)MhLj466

D.B. Bhosale. J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Shri V. P. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service of the notice: Shri K. Y. Mandlik, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 8 waives service of the Notice and Shri S. B. Shetye, Additional Government Pleader, waives service of the notice for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Now before we look at the relevant provisions and consider the challenge made. It would be perhaps better Just to state briefly what credentials of the Petitioners are and what are the facts and grounds for this petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have extensively argued this matter before us inviting our attention to several provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').3. The Petitioners and the...

Bhaskar A. Shetty Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioners of Police, Greater Bom ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)819; 2001BomCR(Cri)718; (2001)2BOMLR741; 2001(3)MhLj138

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this criminal writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes himself as the brother of the detenu Prabhakar Achanna Shetty, has impugned the detention order dated 5.8.2000, passed by the first respondent, Shri M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 5.8.2000. was served on the detenu on 9.8.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B) would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R., namely, C.R. No.270/1999 under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on the basis of a comp...

Jagdish Radhakisan Kayasth Vs. Ramesh N. Wagh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom152; 2001(3)BomCR276; (2001)4BOMLR741

V. C. Daga, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.INTRODUCTION 2. The Issue in the present case is one of potential significance in relation to the law of auction sale and in particular with regard to the auction sale by Court in exercise of powers conferred under Order 21 Rule 82 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.').BACK-DROP FACTS 3. The facts necessary to appreciate rival contentions may be briefly stated :This petition, brought by the judgment-debtor, questions of the validity of the auction sale by Court, of the property owned by the petitioner judgment debtor, held on 12.10.1999. Respondent No. 1 herein is the decree holder: whereas respondent No. 2 is an auction purchaser.4. The respondent No. 1-decree holder had filed Special Civil Suit No. 152 of 1998 for recovery of Rs. 86,250/-. The said suit was decreed for the sum of Rs. 86,250/- with further int...