Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Fag Precision Bearings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC202

1. Although appeal 1485/96 was listed to day, on the counsel for the appellant mentioning that the demand for duty assailed in this appeal is a direct result of a classification challenged in appeal 1004R/96, that appeal was also taken up for hearing to day and decided.2. Appeal 1485/96 is against the order of the Commissioner confirming two demands for duty issued to the Fag Precision Bearing Ltd. the appellant before us, on the ground that the "rerailing equipment" manufactured by the appellant is liable to duty at 15% ad valorem, and not 10% as claimed by the manufacturer. This order follows out of the order assailed in the order appeal, in which the Commissioner has held this equipment has to be classifiable under heading 84.31 and not, as claimed by the manufacturer, under heading 84.79 of the tariff.3. The show cause notice issued to the appellant proposed confiscation of the goods under heading 84.25 on the ground that they were jacks.The Commissioner has held the goods to be c...

ispat Profiles India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT338Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. By a fax received today, Mr. R.S. Paranjape, its chartered accountant, requests adjournment on the ground that the factory is under lock out and records required cannot be produced. The matter has already been adjourned three times on 18-7-2000, 6-9-2000,20-9-2000 and 1-11-2000 at the request of the applicant's representative. Therefore we decline to adjourn further. We have read the memorandum of appeal and other related papers, and heard the departmental representative.2. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the rejection by the Assistant Collector of the claim by the importer, appellant before us, for refund of the additional customs duty paid on goods while clearing them from the customs bonded warehouse in Pune. The basis for the claim was that the goods were entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in entry 1 of the table to the notification 171/88. This entry exempts ingot moulds from Central E...

Century Textiles and Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We are concerned in each of these appeals with the inclusion in the assessable value of the yarn manufactured by each of the appellants of the cost of sizing that yarn. Appeals 4009 to 4014 are by Century Textiles & Industries Ltd and others by Shyamprakash Spinning Mills Ltd. 2. Century Textiles spins cotton yarn. It has filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the orders of the Assistant Commissioner that in computing the value of yarn captively consumed in weaving fabrics, it is the value of the sized yarn that has to be considered, and not the value of the yarn before sizing. The clearances took place between May 1995 and February 1996.3. It is necessary to consider the history of judicial decisions relating to this aspect. The first of the decisions that we are concerned with is that of the Delhi High Court in JK Spinning & Weaving Mills 1983 (12) ELT 239. One of the points before the Delhi High Court was whether levy of duty could be o...

Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the impugned order the Additional Collector has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant, on biries manufactured by it.The Additional Collector found that the appellant had manufactured and cleared biries without paying the duty on it.3. Notice issued to the appellant was based on the fact that there was a failure to account for about 45866 kg. of tobacco which it issued to the contractor who rolled the biries. The notice was issued in March, 1989. The show cause notice was issued on 6-1-1984 for clearances between 1-1-1982 and 30-6-1983. It in effect invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section HA of the Act alleging suppression of production.4. The Tribunal, in LML Limited v. C.C.E. -1991 (51) E.L.T. 434 (Tribunal) has held that in a case where the factory is under the physical control of the officers of the Department, extended period cannot be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts relating to manufacture and clearanc...

Priya Blue Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT381Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are taken up for disposal after waiving deposit of duty and penalty.2. Each of the appellants is engaged in ship breaking and takes credit of the additional duty of customs paid on the importation of the ship, utilising that credit towards payment of duty on articles obtained as a result of breaking it. The tariff provides a heading in each of the chapters in Section XV, (covering base metals and articles of such metals) for goods of that chapter obtained by breaking up a ship. The jurisdictional authorities having concluded that materials other than those which were classifiable under any of these headings were not liable to excise duty, took recourse to Rule 57CC. This rule requires a manufacturer who uses common inputs in the manufacture of dutiable and excisable inputs to pay 8% of the price at which the exempted goods are sold. It appears that the Superintendent wrote to the Ship Breakers' Association asking them to convey this view to its members by issuing such...

K. Sons Overseas (i) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal by K. Sons Overseas (I) Pvt. Ltd., is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty of Rs. 7.22 lakhs approximately. The appellant purchased from Indo Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., two consignments of industrial belts and exported. As a consequence it obtained two advance licences both of which it transferred to Indo Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Indo Rubber Industries in turn transferred the licences in part to S.G. Chemicals, Mumbai. S.G. Chemicals made use of these chemicals to import synthetic rubber. Two consignments of synthetic rubber permitted to be cleared without payment of duty under Notification 203/90.2. Consequently notice was issued S.G. Chemicals and to the appellant alleging that the benefit of notification was not available for the reason that Modvat credit had been utilised in the manufacture of the above belts which was exported, thus contravening one of the conditions of the notification. It therefore proposed to recover the duty from both these...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Alpana Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT443Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing Shri A.K. Jain on the stay application, we find that the point of law being extremely short,the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. We do so. Show cause notice dated 19-8-1993 alleged that M/s. Ashani Corporation had created a dummy unit by the name M/s. Alpana Corporation to take unfair advantage of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The Assistant Collector affirmed this view, confirmed the resultant duty against M/s.Ashani Corporation and imposed penalties on both the firms namely M/s. Ashani Corporation and M/s. Alpana Corporation. Against this order the appeal was filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) depending upon certain case law allowed the appeal resulting in the present appeal from the Revenue.2. In the appeal memorandum as also in the submissions made by Shri A.K. Jain, distinction was sought to be made on the facts of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.)...

Yashodhan Industrial Investment Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD201(Mum.)

1. These are five appeals by the assessee to the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1989-90.2. One of the issues, which is covered by the first two grounds for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1988-89 and the only grounds for the asst. yr.1989-90 and which is common to all the five years is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction in respect of the fall in the value of the shares as claimed in the P&L a/c. The loss claimed is as under for the different years under appeal: The assessee is a public limited company. In the P&L a/c for each of the years under appeal, the assessee debited the aforesaid losses as "value of investments written off". The AO was of the view that the losses were not allowable as business losses because they represented only the decrease in the value of the shares held by the company as investments and that the company had not carried on business as dealer in shares either during the relevant previous years or in the years prior thereto. The assessee's contention w...

Khalil Razak Shaikha (Deceased) Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002ACJ1697; AIR2001Bom283; 2001(3)ALLMR98; 2001(3)BomCR56; (2001)2BOMLR381; 2001CriLJ2303

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Pursuant to a report dated 8th November, 2000 published in Bombay Edition of the Indian Express newspaper dated 9th November, 2000 a Division Bench of this Court comprising of G.D. Patil and A. M. Khanwilkar, JJ., on 29th November, 2000 passed, the following order :'Issue notice, returnable two weeks to (1) State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay (2) Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, (3) Shri S. K. Padvi, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, and (4) Mahajan, Sub-Inspector. Mulund Police Station for showing cause (1) As to why they should not be directed to disclose as to who were the officers on duty who took the injured Sub-Inspector in a police wireless van to a private hospital, (ii) Whether any explanation has been called upon by the Respondents from these police officers travelling In a police wireless van as to why they did not take Khalil Razak Shaikh to...

T.K. Varghese Vs. Nichimen Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR168; (2001)4BOMLR917; [2001(90)FLR91]; (2002)IVLLJ1018Bom; 2001(3)MhLj711

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner workman is aggrieved by the Order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer of the 2nd Labour Court. Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 715 of 1999 in an Interlocutory, Application, which was marked as Exh. U-2. The main reference is still pending. ,2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The Petitioner was in employment of the Respondent Company as a clerk and his employment was discontinued by an order of termination dated 8.3.1995. He challenged the propriety and legality of the said order by raising an Industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication. The Labour Court on receipt of the order of reference issued notices to the respective parties. In response to the aforesaid notice the Petitioner appears to have filed his statement of claim on 18.2.2000 justifying his demand for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service on certain grounds with which we are not presently concerned. However, in ...