Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S Star Scrap Recycling Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By our order dated 7.9.2000 we had directed the applicant to pay the entire penalty amount of rupees five lakhs within three months of receipt of the order. Our order was made in September, 2000. We are in March, 2001, yet the applicants have not furnished us with the compliance of our order by making the payment of the penalty amount.Hence the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962....

Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(96)LC432Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals have come before us on a reference made by the West Regional Bench at Mumbai. After hearing lengthy arguments advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative, we are convinced that the benefit claimed by the appellant of Notification 53/1988 and 14/1992 are not available to them for the simple reason that conditions required to be satisfied by the Notifications have not been satisfied by the appellants. Even no attempt was made by the appellants to establish the existence of circumstances entitling them to claim the benefit of the Notifications.So on the proved facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of these Notifications.In such a state of affairs, the question of law referred to by the West Regional Bench, with due respect to the Members, are not to be answered. We decline to answer those questions because of the peculair facts and circumstances of t...

Baroda Mineral Grinding Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The representative of the appellant prays for withdrawal of the appeal, which is not opposed by the department.The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corpon. Vs. C C Ex, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion for the appellant, a public sector undertaking, to produce the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries of Cabinet Secretariat. The appellant is today absent and unrepresented. Neither the clearance nor any information relating to it has been produced.2.The appeal is dismissed with, however, liberty to the appellant seek restoration of the appeal as and when such clearance is received....

M/S. J.K. Steel and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.28,79,290/- and penalty of Rs.31,95,416/-. We have heard Shri A.D.Maru, advocate for the applicants and Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue.2. The demand is made and confirmed on two grounds. Denial of Rs.18,21,210/- is on the ground of improper availment of deemed credit during the period 1.4.1992 to 30.9.1994. The ruling order of the Ministry was numbered TS/36/94-TRU dated 1.3.1994. This order superseded earlier order No.342/5/91-TRU dated 7.7.1992. The earlier order very clearly stated that where the materials were obviously not duty paid, then the credit was not available. The order which was in existence at the material time did not have any such stipulation. It permitted deemed credit to be taken by all re-rollers operating under notification 1/93 on the ingots and re-rollable materials which were "deemed to have paid duty". In the absence of any condition even if the fact that such goods were obviously not duty paid,...

J.C.T. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 has been wrongly availed of. The Commissioner finds that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of the exported goods, thus contravening the conditions contained in clause (v)(b) of the notification.3. We have read the memorandum of appeal. The first contention in the appeals is that the credit referred to in paragraph 5 of the notification refers to credit taken of the additional duty of Customs paid on the imported goods used in the manufacture of the export product, and would apply to credit of excise duty. We do not find this proposition acceptable. The condition refers to "input stage credit" under Rule 56A or Rule 57A. Going by the plain meaning of these words, both kind of credits i.e. the Central Excise duty as well as the additional duty of Customs would be covered. It would not be correct to say...

Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal held that the goods imported by the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit has been availed of in the manufacture of the goods export of which resulted in grant of advance licence, permitting the notification to be availed of.3. The counsel for the appellant shows before us evidence in the form of a certificate from the Superintendent that movat credit was taken but was reversed before 1997, and that therefore the goods would be covered by the ratio of the unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Exports vs National Aluminium Co & Ors (Appeals 8756/96). He agrees that these details were not given to the Commissioner and attributes to the severe illness of the employee of the appellant. In these circumstances, we think that the Commissioner should have an opportunity t...

M/S. Shivom Ply-n-wood Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT435Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These 19 applications relate to 19 appeals filed by M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shivshankar Plywood Inds. Pvt. Ltd. as well as their directors and employees. They are therefore being taken up together for disposal vide this order.2. During the arguments advanced by both sides, it appeared that on a point of law the appeals themselves were capable of being decided. For the reasons to follow, we do so on granting wavier of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as prayed for in these applications.3. M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "Shivom") and M/s. Shivshankar Plywood Inds. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "Shivshankar") are private limited companies. Mrs. K.D. Wadhwa is the director of Shivom. In actual practice it was D.L. Wadhwa, Director of Shivshankar, who was looking after the operation of both the units.Shivom were manufacturing block boards and plywood. Shivshankar were manufacturing veneer, resins and also plywood. Shivom were selling raw mate...

M/S Satidnam Inds. Vs. C.C., Ahmedabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application is for waiver of penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed on the applicant under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that it had illegally imported parts of textile machinery.3. the issues are arguable and whether the goods were imported in contravention of the rules has to be decided after considering the evidences in this regard. Having regard to the fact that the applicant has already deposited Rs. 75,000/- towards the penalty in pursuance of the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme (although the certificate and final statement under this scheme had not been issued) we waive deposit of the remaining amount of penalty and stay its recovery....

The Yeola Municipality and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom259; 2001(2)ALLMR539; (2001)2BOMLR908; 2001(2)MhLj829

D. B. Bhosale, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge an order dated 25th March, 1987 passed by the respondent No. 2, as confirmed by the respondent No. 3, by his order dated 27th April 1989, invoking the powers vested in them under section 309 read with section 97 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter, the 1965 Act for short) and thereby providing water supply from the Yeola Municipal Council Water Scheme to village Paregaon, Taluka Yeola at the request of the Village Panchayat Paregaon, respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner Yeola Municipal Council (hereinafter. Municipal Council for short) formulated a water supply scheme for the people within the local limits of the Municipal Council some time in 1968-69. The scheme was financed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and was envisaged in two stages. The first stage consisted of construction of a pipeline, to take water from the Godav...