Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Nirlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant has filed Rule 57G declaration giving full particulars of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. On its failure when the modvat credit has been reversed before the issue of show cause notice, there will be any levy of penalty? The appeal itself was taken up for disposal after waiving pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides. During the course of the arguments, Id.counsel for the assessee brings to my notice that Rule 57G declaration has been filed (page 17 of the Paper Book) indicating Plastics and Articles thereof Rigid, Plain as packing material. The final product has been mentioned as Nylon Yarn, Crimped yarn etc. It is admitted before me by the id.departmental representative that necessary due particulars have been given and modvat credit has been reversed in respect of credit taken on the inputs which were used in the exempted category of the final products.In view thereof, the show cause notice c...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. M/S Asian Chemicals Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved is whether modvat credit can be obtained by endorsement of Gate Pass.I. The issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by various judgment of the Tribunal one of which is Chaphekar Engg. P.Ltd. vs CCE,Pune [1996(64)ECR 58(Tri). Hence, following the same, I dismiss the Department's appeal.2. Shri A.K.Jain, the Department Representative during the course of argument pleads before me that the issue has been referred to the Delhi High Court on a Reference Application. He is unable to state whether a decision has been rendered by any of the High Courts ie. either by Mumbai High Court or by Delhi High Court. As lone as there is no decision pronounced by any High Court contrary to the decision mentioned above, I am bound to follow the decision of the Tribunal.Hence, the appeal of the department is dismissed....

M/S. International Barrel Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Since the issue is covered, I have taken up the appeal itself for disposal after waiving pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides.2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Collector in exercise of power under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act has to give notice of hearing and dispose of the appeal or not. The issue has been decided by several decisions of the Tribunal including our decision in the case of Entek IRD International (P) Ltd. [2000(115) ELT 515(T) following the judgement of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Richoh India Ltd. [1999 (34) RLT 231 (Guj).Following the same, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai in Order-in-Appeal dated 31.12.97 and remand the case beck to the Commissioner(Appeals) to deal with the case of the appellant in accordance with law. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal . In view thereof, stay petition also stands di...

Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara confirming duty demand of Rs. 53,06,590/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the appellant who are manufacturers of various chemicals. The issue in dispute relates to price list filed by the assessee in Part II and Part VI showing different prices for Glacial Acetic Acid and Acetic Anhydride. The assessee has paid duty on the value of Rs. 11/-, Rs. 13/-, Rs. 15/- and Rs. 17/- on Glacial Acetic Acid during the period from June to November, 1992 for captive consumption as per Part II price lists whereas they sold the said goods @ Rs. 16/- to Rs. 25/- during the same period to independent buyers, filing price lists under Part II. They were clearing Acetic Anhydride at selling price of Rs. 1.80 per kg. for captive consumption by their sister consumption while the same was product was being sold to independent buyer @ Rs. 22.15 per kg, thus resulting in short levy.2. It is the contention of the learne...

Nuline Glassware (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise has disallowed modvat credit of Rs.12,00,455/- under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rues on refractories on which the assessee took credit prior to issue of notification 11/95 dated 25/2/1995 under to which clause (d) under Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q was inserted so as to specifically cover refractories as capital goods under Rule 57Q.2. On hearing both sides we find that the Tribunal has taken a view in more than one case that refractory material is eligible for modvat credit even prior to the introduction of clause (d) to Explanation 91) to Rule 57Q. One such decision which is cited before us is in the case of Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. CCE 1999 (109) ELT 659. Following the ratio of the above decision which is squarely application to the facts of the present case we hold that modvat credit is admissible to the appellant.Hence we set aside the demand along with the penalty which has been imposed upon the appellants....

Konark Synthetic Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of duty and penalty confirmed against the assessees by the impugned order proceed to take up the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. The Commissioner has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 9.46 crores approximately on quantity of air texturised yarn manufactured and cleared without payment of duty during the period from 1.3.1994 to 13.11.1996, holding that the goods are dutiable under CET sub-heading 5402.32. In addition he has imposed penalties on the assessees as well as on the officers thereof. He has also confiscated plant, machinery and building belonging to the assessee. He has also directed payment of interest on delayed payment of Central Excise duty. The adjudicating authority held that the factory had manufactured air texturised yarn which is dutiable and has invoked the extended period of limitation against the appellants. We not that the unit of the assessee was visited on 15.11.1994 when it was noticed that Air...

Refrigeration Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case duty demand of Rs. 5,86,926.86 has been confirmed on air conditioners manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty during the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. In addition a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed.2. It is the limited contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the benefit of notification 64/83 should be extended to clearance in the year 1983-84 and that the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of notification 65/83 should be made available to clearances during financial year 1984-85 and 1985-86. He submits that the notification 64/83 provides for exemption from duty on air conditioners in respect of first clearances for home consumption of air conditioners on behalf of one manufacturer from one or more factories up to an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 2.5 lakhs cleared on or after 1st April in any financial year provided that the aggregate value of the first clearances of the goods has not exc...

Ramsaran Bhagwandas Gupta Vs. the Union of India, Through the Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR754

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this criminal writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes himself as the brother of one Dashrathlal Bhagwandas Gupta, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, has Impugned the order dated 16.11.2000, passed by the second respondent Mr. Somnath Pal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. 6th Floor, 'B' Wing, Janpath Bhawan. New Delhi, detaining the detenu under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 16.11.2000, was served on the detenu on 18.11.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'C' respectively to this writ petition.2. The prejudicial...

Harubai Rama Chavan and ors. Vs. Krishna Bidesh Suryavanshi (Deceased)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR344; 2001(4)BomCR328; (2001)4BOMLR514

V. K. Barde, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Rule, returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. The land survey No. 164/1 of Village Ranjani, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal was owned by Krishna Bidesh Suryavanshi. The present petitioner- Rama Mhasu Chavan claims that he was a tenant on the land and was in possession on the appointed day. On the basis of this contention, he initiated proceedings under section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act') and in the said proceedings an order was passed in favour of the tenant. However, an appeal was filed, being Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 1991, before the Deputy Collector, Sangh who by his order dated 9.10.1991 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar and directed that the land be restored in possession of the appellant-landlord. Against that order, the present petitioners-Rama Mhasu Chavan filed revision application before the Maharashtra Rev...

Mrs. Monalisa Rohinton Irani Vs. Naval H. Tata and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom495; 2001(4)BomCR330; 2001(4)MhLj73

ORDERV.K. Barde, J. 1. The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows :The trustees of N.M. Petit Charity Fund filed Ejectment Application No. 155/E of 1967 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1947 against Mrs. Meherbai B. Irani for possession of the premises given on leave and licence. In the said proceedings, a settlement took place between the parties and consent terms were filed before the Court of Small Causes and an order in terms of the consent terms was finally passed in the said matter.2. The relevant consent terms read as under :'1. Ejectment Application allowed and the Respondent is ordered and decreed to handover quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the Application premises to the Applicants.2. However, on the Respondent regularly paying the licence fee and upon his giving an undertaking to the effect that he would not transfer, sub-let, under-let and/or in any way part with possession of the Applicat...