Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Maharashtra Steel Inds. Lt ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the appeal before me the department has raised a question (sic) referring to the deemed credit order dt. 12.7.90 and state that the angles etc. which have been for benefit of deemed credit order has been claimed did not fall under the said order. However, the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order stated as follows: "One Order was in respect of iron and steel, copper, aluminiuum zinc and lead. Second deemed credit order was in respect of ingots and rerollabble material of iron and steel. Assistant Collector had only referred to the first order and not to the second one while passing the adjudication order. The second deemed credit order clearly provides credit at the rate of Rs.630/- per MT in respect of ingots and rerollable materials of iron and steel which are used in the process of melting in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 or 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act," 2. The grounds of appeal does not states that there was no second deemed credit order as in...

Balkrishna Textile Industries 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. 3 lakhs and equivalent penalty on the applicant.2. The applicant wrote to the Commissioner, the jurisdictional authority dated 22.12.98 asking for permission to remove two of the chambers from its stenter installed in the factory. The Commissioner has held that this change will only take place with effect from 1.2.99, on the ground that Rule 5 of the relevant rules requires a notice to be given of one month.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that as strictly applying the rule it would follow that no processor could make any changes to its stenter between 16.12.98, when the rules were promulgated, and 16.1.99. We find some merit in this submission. We also find that the commissioner records in his order that the jurisdictional Superintendent was present when two of the chambers were removed from the stenter.4. Accordingly, we accept the offer made by the advocate for the applicant to deposit Rs. 1.5 lakhs wit...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Vir Alloy and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC844

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. In his findings, he stated that Notfn. 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 would not be valid document. Accepting Notfn. No. 15/94-CE, he held that this enables 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 assessees filed an appeal. ...

Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. Prakash Inds. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom8; 2002(1)BomCR641; (2001)4BOMLR310; [2003]115CompCas116(Bom); 2001(4)MhLj425

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have filed a suit contending therein that the Defendant No. 1, which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiffs dated 29th December, 1994 for giving some equipments on lease to the Defendants. The lease money of the equipments was also decided by that agreement. It is further contended that theDefendant No. 2 also entered into an agreement to give personal guarantee for due and punctual payment of all and every sum payable by the Defendant No. 1/Company under the lease agreement to the tune of Rs. 2,31,76,800/-. According to the Plaintiffs, as the Defendant No. 1 committed default in payment of lease money, the agreement was terminated and the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs for recovery of the possession of the lease equipments as also for recovery of arrears of lease money from the Defendant No. 1/Company. So far as the mon...

Renuka Datla Vs. Duphar Interfran Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR387; [2004]121CompCas631(Bom)

Srikrishna, J.1. Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Dr. Tulzapurkar, the learned Counsel, waives service for the respondent. By consent. Appeal Called out and heard.2. This Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Company Judge rejecting the application for opposing the Scheme of demerger put forward for sanction under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act').3. The respondent in the Appeal is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at Mumbai. The Appellant is a shareholder of the respondent-company.4. The company known as Duphar Interfran Ltd. ('the Transferor') ('DIL') was incorporated on 1-5-1991. The company known as Duphar Pharma India Ltd. (The transferee) ('DPIL') was incorporated on 24-1-2000. A Scheme was formulated for demerger of the Pharmaceutical Division and transfer of DIL thereof to DPIL. The scheme envisaged the transfer of the Pharmaceutical business carried on by DIL together with all...

Pride Foramer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom332; 2002(1)ALLMR151; 2002(4)BomCR751; 2002(148)ELT19(Bom); 2001(3)MhLj819

V.C. Daga, J.INTRODUCTION 1. What are the boundaries of India in relation to maritime law is one of the questions of some potential significance raised in this petition, while questing the levy of customs duty on goods (spares/stores) imported by the petitioner for being transshipped for its use at the oil rig as spares and stores which carries on operation in designated area of the country as defined under the Act with the Territorial Waters Continental Shelf. Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 ('the Maritime Zones Act, 1976' for short).FACTUAL MATRIX2. The factual matrix lies in the narrow compass and it is this :The petitioner is a foreign company having its registered office in France and branch office in Mumbai. The petitioner-company is engaged in the exploration and exploitation of offshore oil, gas and provides other related services as a contractor, and works for and on behalf of Oil and Natural Gas Commission ('ONGC' for short).3. The petitioner carrie...

Zunjarrao B. Nagarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(130)ELT48(Bom)

ORDER1. Writ Petition Nos. 1006 to 1008 of 2001 not on Board. Mentioned urgently by Mr. Nankani and taken up after notice to the Respondents. By consent, the said Writ Petitions called out and heard along with Writ Petition No. 914 of 2001.2. In Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2001, serious allegations of bias, prejudice and playing into the hands of vested interests in the Custom Department have been levelled against the Respondent No. 2. The over anxiety displayed by the Respondent No. 2 to transfer the Appeals to be heard at Delhi, lends a modicum of credence to the allegations. In the first place, the transfer of the Appeal to Delhi was made straightaway at the request of the Department without even ascertaining the convenience of the Petitioner : on the second occasion, despite our Order dated 24th January 2001, the Respondent No. 2 reiterated the order and retained the matters at Delhi. Finally, when the learned Additional Solicitor General advised the Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the ...

Premier Electric Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1226Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether duty could be demanded from the appellant before us by seeking to revoke the benefit of exemption contained in notification 203/92 which was extended on their importation. To show cause notice issued to the appellant alleges that modvat credit had been taken on the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods thus contravening the condition contained in clause v(a) to notification 203/92. The notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act on the ground that the exporter had made a wrong declaration on the shipping bill that modvat credit has been availed of.3. Counsel for the appellant contends that the issue is covered by the ratio of the Tribunal in Plastchem Industries Vs. CCE 2000 (120) ELT 775. In that decision the Tribunal has concluded that it was open to the department, when the import took place to ask the importer to satisfy that modvat cr...

Defiance Clothing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants operated in the Free Trade Zone. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the duty on capital goods not found in the units as well as duty on raw materials and finished goods found short in stock taking. The Commissioner confirmed total duties of Rs. 29,09,841/- and imposed penalties totally amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs.Hence, the present appeal and the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.2. We have heard Shri Ravindra Jain, Consultant for the applicants and Shri J.M. George, JDR for the respondent.3. As regards the capital goods found short, the Commissioner has mentioned the statement made by the applicants that these goods were given to the job workers who had failed to return them to the present applicants. In reply to a specific query, Shri Ravindra Jain stated that the terms for such time limit for such loans was six months which period has expired. Therefore, prima-facie, the applicants do not have any case for the duty of Rs. 3,91...

M/S. Vikoflex Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT598Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The single issue for determination in this appeal is the classification of the product made by the appellants. The catalogue called the product as "Teflon Plain Hose with S.S.Braid / Teflon Corrugated Hose with S.S. Braid," The assessees held that plastic hose being specifically covered under Chapter 39, the appropriate heading was under Ch.39.17. The claim of the Revenue was that the product is classifiable under heading 83.07. The Commissioner held that it was metal that gave the essential characteristics to the assembly and therefore, the classification under Chapter 83 was appropriate.2. During the hearing the judgement of the Tribunal reported in 2000(121)E.L.T. 690 - J.R. Engineering Indus.(P).Ltd. vs. CCE was produced before us. On perusal of the judgement, we find that the identical product was before the Tribunal for decision and the contested classifications were also the same. The Tribunal after referring to the HSN Note and on examining the Rules for which the product w...