Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Oboi Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Exicse

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC122

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant filed a declaration for classification under heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff as patent or proprietary medicaments of four products manufactured by it. These are described as ampicillin sodium injection, lidocaine hydrochloride injection, cloxacillin injection and 'Ulcerix'. the goods were intended to be exported. The department, on examination of the labels on the containers of the products, took the view that these were not patent or proprietary medicaments but other medicaments classifiable under heading 3003.20, carrying nil rate of duty. It objected to the modvat credit taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture.The assessee resisted the contention in the notice. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders confirming the denial of the modvat credit and imposing penalty. The appeal against that order having been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals)...

M/S. R.K. Metal and Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing this application for waiver of pre-deposit of rupees one lakh imposed as penalty, it appeared that the issue being straight forward, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. The prayer for waiver was granted and the appeal was taken up.2. Two show cause notices were issued alleging that the assessees had taken much greater quantum of credit than was permissible as per the duty paying documents. It was further alleged that this inflated credit was utilized for clearance of dutiable goods. The duties were demanded and allegations as to penalty were made. The total over-drawal alleged was Rs.2,53,865/- and Rs.58,409/-. The excess credit was reversed by the assessees before the issue of the show cause notice and the interest was paid thereafter before the adjudication order was issued.The Deputy Commissioner passed orders confirming the duty and imposing total penalties of rupees six lakhs. The Commissioner upheld the lower order but reduced the penalty to rupees on...

M/S. Phils Engg. Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present appeal is summed up in the following finding of the Commissioner (Appeals):- "I have gone through the case records and the submissions made by the appellants. The main point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the delivery challans of the stockyard of M/s. SAIL bearing two endorsements are to be treated as valid duty paid documents for availment of modvat credit. Under Rule 57G(2), certain duty paying documents are documents prescribed by the CBEC, evidencing the payment of duty. Thus, the certificate issued by the Public Sector Undertaking endorsed only once is a valid duty paying documents as prescribed by the Board for availment of modvat credit under the said Rule. There is no dispute that the appellants had purchased the inputs covered by the Delivery Challan bearing two endorsements. Since only one endorsement is prescribed by the Board under Rule 57G(2), modvat credit is not admissible to the appellants."Earl Bihari Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE...

Kopran Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 10.92 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 2.73 lakhs. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the view that the goods tendered for export by the applicant were not, as claimed by it, patent or proprietary medicaments but other medicaments classifiable under heading 3003.20 of the Central Excise tariff carrying nil rate of duty and hence modvat credit could not be taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture.2. The representative of the applicant relies upon an earlier stay order of the Tribunal passed in its own case in application E/Stay-830/98-Bom in appeal E/1111/98-Bom. The Departmental representative says that this order of the Tribunal has not taken note of the Supreme Court's judgement in Astra Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 214 in coming to its conclusion that the manufacturer, in classifying its product proceeded on its understanding of law as laid down by the Tribunal. On reading the order, we find ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Shreenath Associates

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri A. Chopra for the Revenue, the appeal was admitted and was taken up for disposal. The respondents were not present.2. The respondents had taken credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes. Citing a Tribunal judgment the Assistant Commissioner permitted such availment. The Revenue then moved an application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) cited Tribunal judgment in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala (P) Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 620 and reiterated the Supreme Court's direction in Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) ELT 433 that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed. He also cited the judgment of the High Court in the case of Vishal Plastics to hold that the ratio of the judgment would continue to apply even where a reference had been made to a High Court on a point of law arising there from. On his dismissal of the appeal before him, the Revenue have filed the present appeal.3. The sole statement ma...

M/S. Newage Industries Ashokbhai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. These two appeals are filed against the order of the Joint Commissioner (L&R), Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot.I find that the preamble to the said order indicates to the Tribunal to be the appellate authority.Section 35B for the Central Excise Act, 1944, however, permits, the appeals to be filed before the Tribunal only against the orders passed by a Commissioner of Central Excise as the adjudicating authority.These appeals therefore are filed before the wrong forum and are dismissed as not maintainable. The stay applications also stand dismissed....

M/S. Steelco Gujarat Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri J.C. Patel, advocate for the applicants and Shri Bodade for the Revenue, it appeared that at this stage itself the appeal could be taken up for disposal. This was done on granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 3,54,374/-.2. The assessees manufactured excisable goods and cleared them without payment of duty to M/s. Shree Precoated Steel Ltd. in terms of notification 47/94-NT dated 22.9.1994. This notification permitted duty-free clearance of goods which would be used in the manufacture of further goods for export. The notification prescribed that the movement of the goods should be governed by the provisions of chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In terms of these provisions the recipient manufacturer was required to possess a registration certificate in the form of or R2 and the movement of the goods would covered under a C.T.2 certificate. In terms of rule 192 of the rules this concession would cease "on the expiry of the registration certificate...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Maradia Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing Shri A. Chopra for the Revenue, the appeal was admitted and was taken up for disposal. The respondents were not present.2. The assessees used refractory bricks for lining of the furnace and took credit of the duty paid thereon in terms of rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision of the Assistant Commissioner denying the credit following the ratio of the following judgments of the Tribunal:-Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. vs. CCE In the Revenue appeal it is claimed that the judgment in the case of Jindal Strips had not been "accepted" by the department. The other claim made is that refractory bricks were included only with effect from 16.3.1995 and that the credit taken before that date was wrong.This point has been adequately settled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills 1999 (108) ELT 57. The ratio of every judgment given by the Tribunal remains binding on the department until it...

Kona Krishnarav Nayudu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

1. The Applicant in this O.A. comes up to the Tribunal in grievance against the disciplinary proceedings that have been taken up against him and seeks the relief, in substance, for the quashing and setting aside of proceedings/communications in departmental enquiries, as annexed at Exhibits A-1 to A-4. Also, for a direction to Respondents to treat as closed, the enquiry initiated vide Memo dated 01.04.1989, holding it as abandoned/dropped in 1989 itself.Incidental/consequential reliefs, as described in paras 8 (c) to 8 (g) of the O.A. are also sought.2. The facts/events that are relevant to the course of enquiry and to an analysis of the claims and arguments on both sides have been carefully seen. In order to present a cogent picture, these events are culled out from the facts presented in the application as also in the Written Statement of Reply of Respondents/documents on record. The chronology is presented below for an easy appreciation of the case: Disciplinary enquiry for minor p...

Vasantlal Thakorlal Bhagat and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR190

R. M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners pray that it be declared that the continued requisition of petitioners' premises viz. Block No. 10. Room No. 3, 2nd floor, Vasant Niwas No. 2, Morvi Lane. Chowpatty Sea Face. Bombay is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act. 1948 and for direction to respondents to rescind the order of requisition in relation to the premises in question and delivery of possession of the said premises to the petitioners.2. Briefly stated the petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the premises above referred were requisitioned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1950 under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petitioners called upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hand over quiet, peaceful and vacant possession of the requisitioned premises because the requisition of the premises in question could not continue beyond reasonable period-The petitioners amended the writ petition vide draft amendm...