Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Daleclo Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants desired disposal of the appeal on merits. ON hearing Shri Chopra JDR for the Revenue. it appear that on a point of law, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done on granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,23.591 towards duty and penalty of Rs. 5000/-.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the present appellants on account of their failure to pre-deposit the contested amounts in spite of the directions made by the Commissioner (Appeals).In their appeal memorandum, the appellants state that they had not received the interim order directing the pre-deposit. The second claim made is that the commissioner had not directed them to appear for a hearing either at the time of making the interim order or at the time of making the final order.3. The Commissioner (Appeals)' order does not state whether any opportunity was given to the present appellants to appear before the ld. Commissioner. I, therefore, have to accept the claim made by the ...

Hi-tech Electronics, Lalit Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC91

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 13.11 lakhs approx. from Lalit Products, and penalty of Rs. 18.10 lakhs under rule 9 to 52A and 11AC; and penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each on remaining nine applicants.2. We have heard the counsel present and the departmental representative. We have considered the written submissions filed on behalf of others.3. The duty has been demanded and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that Lalit Product cleared mixers and electrical extension rods without payment of duty. The Commissioner records that while the value of clearance from 1997 to 1998 recorded in its books was Rs. 30 lakhs, the statements of transporters who carried the goods from it factory and consignees of the goods show that the value of goods cleared was Rs. 73 lakhs. The contention on behalf of Lalit Products in its written submission appear to be that even accepting the fact of such clearances, duty is not payable the benefit of notification 1/93 w...

Ramniranjan Kedia Tourism Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (imp),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Asst. Commissioner had before him claims for refund of additional duties of customs paid on importation of motor cars. The importer claimed the benefit of notification 64/93, which provides partial exemption from Central Excise duty to motor cars which, after clearance by their manufacturer, are registered for use us taxis. The Asst. Commissioner held the refund to be payable. The department appealed these orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that since the notification exempted Central Excise duty, it would not be available to an importer of motor cars in respect of additional duty of Customs equal to that duty. He said, "Refund claimed by the respondent are not admissible in these cases". Thereafter he set aside the orders of the Asst. Commissioner and remanded the cases to the adjudication authority for "deciding afresh as per after as giving personal hearing to the respondent." 2. We are unable to understand what kind of decision the Asst.Commissioner could ha...

Fannson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) made in order-in-appeal no. CS-80-DRD/96 dated 10.4.96 confirmed the order made by the Asst. Collector, Vadodara made in order in original. The Asst.Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 53,34,265/- on the ground that end use certificate has not been given.2. The appellants are a company manufacturing bulk drugs namely Paracetamol IP classifiable under sub-heading 2907.90. The appellants filed a classification list 88/91 effective from 25.7.91 claiming classification under sub-heading 2907.90 and also claimed confessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem in terms of notification 31/88 dated 1.3.88. The CL was sent back with the remark "subject to end use certificate". It is the contention of the assessee that the notification did not stipulate any condition whatsoever for production of end use certificate is respect of the product in question in order to enjoy con...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise and Vs. M/S. Isinox Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from the Revenue was admitted for hearing and was taken up for final disposal after hearing Shri Sarkar, JDR.2. The issue for decision is whether P.P tanks in which a combination of acid was stored for processing the inputs going in the final products manufactured by the assessees, qualify for the words "capital goods" in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner in his order cited a number of judgements of the Tribunal in which the benefit was extended to tank storing raw materials and processed chemicals. The last judgement quoted by him [2000(38)RLT 881 - CCE vs Pfizer Ltd] directly covered the question.3. In this appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner allowing the benefit, the following ground is made:- "It is clear from the definition of Capital Goods under rule 57Q during the relevant period that P.P.Tanks classified under 7308 were not specified capital goods. Further these cannot be treated as part of the wire drawing plant a...

M/S. Dintex Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application seeks waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards penalty. The appellants have already deposited the total amount of duty confirmed in the lower proceedings.2. On hearing Shri Mondal, Consultant for the appellant and Shri B.B.Sarkar for the Revenue, I find that the applicants have not made out a strong prima - facie case in their favour in all the aspects involved in this case. No arguments on financial hardship have been advanced. I, therefore, direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. On this deposit being made, there shall be waiver of requirement of pre-deposit of the remaining amount and recovery thereof shall be stayed. The assessees are given time upto 31/5/01 to make the deposit....

Pralhad Lokram Dodeja and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR35; (2001)3BOMLR65

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Can proceedings for acquisition of land lawfully taken be challenged., by filing a writ petition after any number of years What should be the approach of the Government and its Ministers when an application for withdrawal of land from acquisition is made to the Government? There are some of the important questions which arise in these three writ petitions.2. These three writ petitions bearing Nos. 670/96. 3620/98 and 3874/ 98 arc concerning the acquisition of a large plot of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 34 Ares bearing Survey No. 559/A2/B2 situated in Bibwewadi area of Pune City. These petitions have been heard together and are being decided together.3. Writ Petition No. 670 of 1996Writ Petition No. 670/96 is filed by one Shri Pralhad Lokram Dodeja and his brother Bansidhar Lokram Dodeja, both of whom owned this plot of land. The third petitioner is M/s Mutha Associates through its partner Shri Shantilal Mutha, who claims to have acquired the development rights over th...

Usmangani Jikari Mohd. Shaikh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1427; (2001)3BOMLR502

ORDERB. P. Singh, C.J. 1. These four criminal appeals and one revision application have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Five persons were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No. 854 of 1989 charged of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for murder, and under Section 460 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing offence of lurking house trespass by night. One Indrajeet Bhagwant Singh Anand aged about 18 years was murdered on April 27, 1989. The death of Indrajeet Singh was allegedly caused by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Accused No. 1 is Ahmed Shaikh Babajan, hereinafter referred to as Accused No. 1 Accused No. 2. Usmangani Jikari Mohd. Shaik is the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 being the brother of his wife Asmabi, accused No. 4. He shall be referred to as 'Accused No. 2'. Accused No. 3 Moinuddin Ibrahim Khan is said to be the estate agent through wh...

Dhanesh Textile Industrids Pvt Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT418Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Dhanesh textile Industries Pvt Ltd, the appellant, is a processor of textile fabrics. Consequent upon the promulgation of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, it filed a declaration in order for the annual capacity of its stenter to be determined. The Commissioner earlier provisionally determined this capacity, and by order. dated 25.12.1998 determined it finally at 3.44 chambers. The appellant was required to pay duty at Rs 1.50 lakhs per chamber per month. The Rules came into force on 16.12.1998, and, as it initially read, Rule 96ZQ(3) provided that the amount of duty determined shall be paid by the 15th of each calendar month, provided that the duty payable for the period from 16.12.1998 to 31.12.1998 shall be deposited on or before 31.12.1998. The appellant had paid Rs 2.25 lakhs on 30.12.1998 and an additional sum of Rs 27,000/- on 31.12.1998.2. The department was of the view that the duty required to be paid for the 16 day peri...

M/S. Ekbote Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT751Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These 5 appeals arise from the same impugned order and are therefore being dealt with in this common order.2. M/s. Ekbote Interior Pvt. Ltd., (hereafter called as EIPL) had 3 Directors - Suhas, Eknath and Damodar. They had workshop at Gultakadi and Showroom at Mukand Nagar at Pune. M/s. Ekbote Brothers Furniture Works (hereafter called as EBFW) was a firm with Dattoba, Eknath and Santosh as partners. All the partners and/or Directors are closely related by blood. They had a workshop in Mahatma Phule Peth and a Showroom at Sadhashiv Peth. M/s. Ekbote Enterprises (hereafter called as EE) were traders in materials required for making furniture as also materials required by interior decorators. They has an office-cum-showroom at Mukant Nagar as also another warehouse. Suhas Ekbote was a Director of EIPL and also the partner of EBFW. M/s. EIPL and M?S EBFW apart from manufacturing furniture, undertook contracts of interior decoration also. The customers would come to these units.They wo...