Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Marine Container Services (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Dhirajlal Vora

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR699; (2002)104BOMLR273

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Suit No. 3844 of 1999 is filed by Marine Container Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Seagate Trading and Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. M/s. Seagold Finance and Investment (Services) Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Omega International Container against one Dhirajlal Hakimchand Vora for a money decree in the amount of Rs. 4,73,00,000/- with interest.Suit No. 3828 of 1999 is filed by the same plaintiffs against Rajesh Dhirajlal Vora for recovery of the identical amount and Suit No. 3845 of 1999 is filed by the same plaintiffs against Sunayana Rajesh Vora for a decree in the identical amount. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had advanced loans to the Companies and partnerships, which are controlled by the three defendants, who belongs to the same family and to secure those loans these three defendants had executed personal guarantee in favour of the plaintiffs.2. These suits have been filed on the basis of those guarantees for recovery of the amount of loans. In these three suits, t...

Chase Bright Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner holding that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to clearance without payment of duty under notification 203/92 for the reason that one of the condition contained in the notification, that modvat credit should not have been availed of, had been contravened.3. The Commissioner records in his order that there was no reply to the notice and nobody appeared for hearing. The counsel for the appellant produces before us a copy of the appellant's reply dated 8th April, 1999 to the notice, which has been received by the Commissioner's office on 9th April, 1999, long before he passed his order on 21th September, 2000. The reply contains submissions on merits as well as on limitation. He also contends that the appellant did not receive the notice of hearing.4. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.The Commissioner shall, after giving the appellant before us a reasonable opportunity of being hear...

Shri Mohd. Arif Abdul Khalik, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three applications relate to three appeals filed against the single order of the Commissioner of Aurangabad. They are, therefore, taken up for disposal together.2. We have heard Shri Doiphode, advocate appearing alongwith Shri S.P.Mathew, advocate for the appellants. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain JDR for the Revenue.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the officers of the Central Excise at Jalgaon searched the godown of M/s. Arco Transport Co. Paldhi and recovered 236 packages containing bearings and 16 packages containing cosmetics both of foreign origin. These goods were detained on 12.2.99 and seized on 23.2.99 in the absence of any information as to the ownership. Shri Mohammed Arif Abdul Khalik Director of M/s.Aries Re-Rolls Pvt. Ltd. claimed ownership vide letter dated 25.299. In his subsequent statement he claimed to have purchased these goods as ship breaking scraps. He produced the commercial invoice, weigh bridge slip, consignment note etc. On investigation, se...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gandhi Soap Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent to this appeal was engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder and acid slurry. It cleared on payment of duty of 5% spent sulphuric acid, a by-product. By a notice issued to, the department contended that spent sulphuric acid was nothing other than the sulphuric acid which the manufacturer received and utilised, and thus not manufactured by it. It therefore proposed, although not entirely clearly, recovery of the modvat credit taken on so much of acid that was initially utilised in the manufacture from which the spen acid resulted. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty.2. The manufacturer appealed this order. The Commmissioner (Appeals) held that spent sulphuric acid ought to have been classifiable under heading 38.23 and not under heading 28.07 ofthe tariff. He therefore set aside the demand and directed the Assistant Commissioner t odetermine duty liability and the department questions this finding contending that the correct classification ought ...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. M/S. Vir Alloy and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents in this appeal filed by the Revenue were availing of the facility of modvat credit.The credit taken by them under 129 documents totally amounting to Rs.13.58,143.14 was challenged.The allegation in the show cause notice was that the Gate passes were not in their name but were endorsed after 31.3.94.It is also claimed that the suppliers later endorsed invoices were not in their name.The Asstt.Commissioner confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty of Rs. One lakh.I his findings, he state that Not.No.16/94 CE which prescribed that the gate passes to become valid documents must have been issued prior to 1.4.94 and any gate pass endorsed subsequent thereto wold not be valid document.Accepting Not.Co.15/94 CE, he held that his enable modvat credit to be taken on the basis of invoice issued by dealers and the assessees taking the benefit under invoices issued by the manufactures was not in order.Against this order, the assesses filed an appeal. Before the Commissioner,...

Bright Star Manufacturing Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT680Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the classification determined by the Assistant Commissioner of electrical connectors under heading 85.36 of the tariff and remanded for reconsideration by the Assistant Commissioner on the classification of the other items such as fuse holders and receptacles.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant before us is that these connectors are used in television sets and videocassette recorders, and are therefore not used for making connections to or in electrical circuits. This contention is obviously unacceptable. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly explained at length that the electronic components to which these goods are used are devices running on electricity, and that heading 8536.90 would cover these goods. We do not find any material cited before us to rebut this finding....

Modasa Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(125)ELT492Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal of Modasa Packaging Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer, and confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was appealed.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a common order disposing of two appeals, one by the appellant before us and one by Monita Containers Pvt. Ltd. The appeal E/4291/95 filed by Monita Containers Pvt. Ltd. came up for hearing on 17.1.2001. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the benefit of notification 67/82 would be available to the manufacturer on its reimbursing to the department the amount of credit taken by it.4. The facts in the case of the appellant now before us appear to be identical with the facts with which are concerned in the earlier appeal. Therefore, by applying the ratio of that decision we allow the appeal, holding that benefit of notification 67/82 should be extended to the clearances of the goods made between 1.9.1990 a...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Sharda Texturing Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that in computing, for the purpose of notification 1/93, the value of clearances of the manufacture, it is the date on which the manufacturer opted to avail of the notification that should be reckoned and not, as the department proposed, from the commencement of the financial year for which the notification is claimed.2. We have heard the departmental representative. Respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. This issue has been decided by the larger bench of the Tribunal in Ramakrishna Engineering Works Vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 346. The Tribunal has held that the words 'first clearances' occurring in the notification refer to clearances from the commencement of the financial year. There is no basis for the Commissioner (Appeals) view that since the manufacturer elected to avail of the notification in the middle of the financial year (although it was available at the commencement of the financial year)...

Ashok Construction Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT540Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application is for rectification of the Tribuna's order disposing of the appeal filed by Ashok Contruction Company 3. The first contention appears to be that the Tribunal ought to have adjourned the matter. The Tribunal had noted that the appellant was absent or unrepresented at the hearing. It is contended that adjournment was sought by means of a fax message which was sent to some acquaintance of the appellant(since it could not be sent through Tribunal's fax machine, which it is claimed was not working). The photocopy of the document said to have been sent by the proprietor of the appellant seeking adjournment of the matter is cited in support.This is a copy of a letter or a fax message. The registry has endorsed that no request for adjournment was received, as has the court clerk.The appellant has not produced any evidence in support of the claim that the request for adjournment was delivered to the registry.4. It is next contended that in the order passed on the miscellan...

Kakda Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC189

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal after granting waiver of deposit with consent of parties.2. The appellant before us tendered for export three consignments of men's and women's shirts, claiming the benefit of the Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme. The f.o.b. value of these shirts was declared to be Rs. 2.40 crores. The total present market value was declared to be slightly in excess of Rs. 2.64 crores. This was on the basis of the f.o.b. value of Rs. 455/- for a man's shirts and Rs. 325/- for woman's shirt, with corresponding market value of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 325/- respectively.3. Under the DEPB scheme, the exporter of any goods earns as credit a percentage of the f.o.b. value of the goods exported, to be set off against duty payable on goods that may be imported. The rate of credit specified for garments at the relevant time was 18% of the f.o.b.value. Paragraph 7.36A of the handbook set a ceiling or limit on the availability of DEPB. It said that in respect of the products w...