Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Parul Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC818

1. After hearing both sides on the stay application, I have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant sent on e of the inputs received by it, and intended to be used in the manufacture of pesticides, to a job worker for an intermediate process. The requirement contained in sub rule (3) of Rule 57F of intimation intimating the Assistant Commissioner, and obtaining his dated acknowledgement of the proposal to send the inputs was complied with. However, the appellant did not comply with the requirement contained in sub rule (3A) of this rule, requiring the manufacturer to debit an amount equal to the credit taken on the inputs which are sent for processing to the job worker. On the department coming to know of this, notice was issued to the appellant proposing to disallow the credit and to impose penalty on the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the proposal in the ...

M/S. Chandrapur Vidyut Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Very short point involved in this case is the validity of the certain documents for claiming modvat. For this reason the appeal was taken up for disposal by granting waiver of predeposit of Rs.68, 699.31 being modvat credit disallowed.2. Certain inputs were utilised by the appellants on the strength of four gate passes issued by M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. Three gate passes bearing serial No. 2292, 2293 and 2409 were covering stock transfer to their own godowns. These gate passes were endorsed by their stockyard keepers to M/s. Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Chandrapur, which admittedly the appellants are not. The 4th gate pass bearing Serial No.2410 is so endorsed to M/s. Chandrapur Vidyut Conductors Pvt. Ltd. which is the name of the appellants unit. Shri G L Deshpande attempted to claim the credit where the gate passes wee not endorsed to their own unit by taking shelter the Tribunal judgement in the case of Amal Rasayan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1993 (67) ELT 133 ...

Ablaze Process System (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 12.12.1997 by the Tribunal on the ground that deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs which was ordered had not been made, is prayed for in this application.Counsel for the applicant contends that, subsequent to the order, the department has seized plant and other goods belonging to it, of the value of Rs. 8.5 lakhs. Therefore, there has been substantial compliance with the stay order. He also contends that the question involved in the appeal, classification of laboratory glassware, has also since been settled.2. We are unable to accept either of these contentions. Acceptance of them, in effect, would mean that the appeal of any person would have to be restored after sufficient passage of time. In every case that the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance, with the stay order the department resorts to recovery of dues sooner or later. All disputes which give rise to appeals are settled in due course. Accepting these contentions would re...

Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufactures malleable case iron inserts. It is common ground that these inserts are only used to fasten the rails of a railway line to concrete sleepers, and that ultimate user of these sleepers is the Indian Railways. The purchasers of these inserts are either the railway themselves or manufacturer of concrete sleepers, who sell them to the railways. It is also not in dispute that in every case, inspection of these inserts is to be conducted by Rail India Technical and Economics Services (RITES for short), the inspection and research agency of the railways. In terms of their contract with the railways, both the appellant, when it sells the sleepers, and the sleeper manufacturers, when they buy them from the appellant, are required to get these inserts inspected and approved by RITES before they purchase them and fitted in their sleepers. The question in this appeal is the includability of the charges paid to RITES for the inspection conducted by it. In the order imp...

M/S. Arbindo Liquors Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC498

1. On hearing Shri G L Deshpande for the appellants and Shri A K Jain for the Revenue, it appeared that on a short point the appeal itself could be disposed of. This was done.2. The issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) pertained to denial of modvat credit taken on original copy of the gate pass. The Ld.Commissioner in his order has narrated the grounds on which the lower authority chose to rule against the assessee. The submissions made in the appeal memorandum were not referred to by him at all. This was in the face of the submission of the assessee that the case should be decided on merits. He disposed of the appeal in the following manner. "4. Having considered the written submissions of the appellants and the finding of the Adj. Officer, I hold that the impugned order is correctly passed, and is therefore, upheld." 3. No doubt a lot of thoughts occurred in the Ld. Commissioner's mind leading him to pass this judgement. But as an appellate authority it was expected that the deli...

Baif Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals), setting aside, on an application filed by the department under Section 35F of the Act, the order of the Assistant Collector approving the price list filed by the manufacturer for captive consumption of Rs. 60.48 per kilogram for aluminium hydroxide gel. In that order, the Collector (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the department that since the manufacturer had for the same product, filed a price list in Part I showing a value Rs.125/- per kilogram, that price, which was the value under Section 4(1)(a) should be applied for valuation of that part of the product which was captively consumed.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice issued to its designated address. No request for adjournment has been received.We have therefore read and considered the submissions in the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. The first ground is that the application under Section 35F filed b...

M/S. Biochem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I have heard Shri A.V. Naik on the stay application and Shri V.K.Choubey for the Revenue.2. The applicants manufactured Medicaments. Control Samples wee sent to their laboratory situated in about 200 Mts. away from the factory. The samples were destroyed during the testing the movement was done under private documentation. The show cause notice was issued seeking levy of duty on such clearances made to their laboratory. Capital goods used in the laboratory were also denied modvat credit.3. Duty amounting to Rs.1,87,153.33 was confirmed. Penalty of Rs.1,51,476.43 was imposed under Section 11AC. Modvat credit of Rs.16,407.78 on chemicals used in the laboratory was disallowed and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Rule 57-1. Credit of Rs 13,682/- under Rule 57G was denied and an equivalent penalty was imposed under Rule 57U. Another penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed under Rule 52-A. This application seeks waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of these sums.4. I have heard ...

Naseemunisa Begum D/O Shaikh YasIn and anr. Vs. Shaikh Abdul Rehman S/ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj115

V.K. Barde, J.1. These Applications, Writ Petitions and Revision Application are placed before the Division Bench because of the reference made by the learned Single Judge. All these matters are arising out of the dispute with respect to right of maintenance of divorced Muslim Women, with reference to the provisions of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act')- The learned Single Judge has enumerated the points, which require, according to him, a decision by the Larger Bench; and those are as follows :'(1) Whether sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, by themselves, are enabling provisions, so as to confer some rights on a divorced woman, particularly in view of : (a) the preamble and the statement of objects and reasons of the Act;(b) the rights specified, protected or created newly in favour of a divorced woma...

Smt. Rekha Pradeep Nandoskar Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)624; 2001BomCR(Cri)598; (2001)3BOMLR326; 2001CriLJ3097; 2001(3)MhLj64

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Pradip @ Bandya Dayal Nandoskar, has impugned the detention order dated 17.3.2000 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. R. H. Mendonca. Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under subsection 1 of Section 3 of 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 17.3.2000 was served on the detenu 29.3.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the impugned order is founded on two C.Rs. viz. (i) C.R. No. 264/99 under Sections 452 and 324 of the I.P.C. registered at R.A.K. Police Station on the basis of a complaint dated 25.9.99 filed by ...

Sicom Limited Vs. Rajaram B. Suryavanshi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR377; 2001(4)BomCR512

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Plaintiff sanctioned and advanced to a Company known as Nesari Dairy Products Ltd. a Short Term Bridge Loan of Rs. 22,50,000/- on the terms and conditions contained in a loan agreement dated 24th April, 1995. In these proceedings the Defendants have been sued upon a Deed of Guarantee executed by the Defendants on 26th April, 1995 by which the Defendants guaranteed the payment of the dues of the Plaintiff. The loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the principal borrower, inter alia, provided that a joint and several Demand Promissory Note be executed by the borrower and the Guarantors in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the principal sum of Rs. 22.50 lakhs and interest thereon at the rate of 22.5% per annum. The loan agreement also stipulated that a guarantee shall be executed by the Defendants herein. The loan was to carry interest at the rate of 20% per annum or at such lending rate as may be prevalent at the time of the execution of the agreeme...