Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

indofil Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1053Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Indofil Chemicals Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of pesticides. it availed of the facility of modvat credit. Notice issued to it alleged that it did not utilise aluminium pouches and cardboard cartons, two of the inputs that it had declared, in its factory in the manufacture of pesticides. These two articles were used by its job worker to pack pesticides, which it sold to them.3. In reply, the manufacturer disputed the position so far as pouches were concerned it said that it used these pouches in its factory to pack pesticides. It accepted that it did not use the cartons in its factory. it supplied the cartons to job worker who packed the pouches containing the pesticides received from the appellant's factory in these cartons as required by law.It therefore contended that both these items were inputs within the meaning of the rules. The Additional Commissioner, whose order ...

Telekrit Electricals (Nagpur) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT765Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The primary question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of telescopic lighting towers that the appellant manufactures. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has described the structure and the function of this tower.He says that it is composed of tapering sections. The base of each section is narrower than the base of the one below it, so that each section is capable of falling back into the section below it. The whole thing, as its name indicates, is telescopic, the object being to raise or lower its height, both to facilitate transportation as well as to render it suitable for use in different locations. Its use, we are told, is to provide illumination in such areas as opencast mines. Atop of the last segment is mounted a battery of electric lights which can be swelled in order to provide illumination in the required area.Electricity from either generator or from the main supply is the motive power.2. The appellant had claimed classi...

Phil Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT450Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty of Rs 40,92,741/- has been demanded, and a penalty of equal amount Section 11AC of the Act, and Rs 50,000/- under other provisions have been imposed. A find of Rs 7.50 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of plant and machinery has also been imposed.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the activity undertaken by the applicant of dry roasting and frying in oil of cashew nits, thereafter salting and flavouring them and packing them in tins amounts to manufacture, the resultant product being classifiable under heading 20.10 of the tariff.3. The counsel for the applicant contends that, applying the established test of manufacture as resulting in the emergence of anew commodity having a distinct identity, nomenclature and use, there is not manufacture. The treatment that the applicant accorded to the raw nuts only enhanced the edibility. The cashew nuts, before and after it, continued to be edible nuts. He alternatively contends that...

Prempreet Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT691Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd is engaged in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn (PFI for short) by drawing partially oriented yarn (POY for short). It is also engaged in subjecting either untwisted yarn or yarn that has already been subjected to some degree of twist.The appellant had installed in its factory a draw twisting machine and four twisting machines. Draw Twisting Machine only subject the yarn a process of drawing. The other machines only capable of imparting twist to yarn. Twisted yarn made out of untwisted yarn is exempted by notification 35/95 as amended by notification 8/96. The process of drawing of PFY by drawing POY is liable to duty.2. The officers of the department, visited the appellant's factory, searched the premise and recovered various records. We are only concerned with one of the documents referred to as creel register. The show cause notice records that this register contends that was recovered from the table of Premar Singh, Technical Manager. H...

Allana Pharmachem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant could take during 1991, modvat credit on six gate passes which had been endorsed three times before they reached the appellant.The Deputy Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has denied the credit by applying the instructions of the Board, which permitted only two endorsements.3. In the appeal earlier filed by this appellant (E515/96), this Tribunal, applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in SBS Organic Pvt Ltd vs. CCE 1990 (45) ELT 701, has held that the fact of there being more than two endorsements permitted by instructions do not render the gate pass invalid for taking credit.4. Accordingly, this appeal is also allowed and the impugned order set aside....

Eastern Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. 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. 570744/-, and a penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs.2. The applicant was engaged in the manufacture of sodium petroleum sulphonate. It is stated by its counsel that it obtains waste filter cake supplied free of charge by Lubrizol Ltd. from which it extracted this product, and supplied it to Lubrizol at Rs. 33/- per kilogram.Subsequently, the applicant undertook manufacture of the same product of a higher grade for which it used heavy alkylate, for which it declared the value of Rs 50/- per kilogram. Notice was issued to it proposing to add to the value of Rs. 33/- per kilogram Rs. 17/- per kilogram towards the cost of the raw material supplied free by Lubrizol. The Assistant Commissioner (whose order has Been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)) upheld the addition of the value and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the department has no evidence to show that sulphonate of t...

J.B.M. Tools Ltd., Autoline Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT561Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay applications filed by J.B.M. Tools Ltd. and by Autoline Stamplings Pvt. Ltd. were listed for hearing to day. however, since we find that the common issue for consideration in these appeals is covered by decisions of this Tribunal, we have, with the consent of both parties, decided to take up these appeals for disposal with that of SKF Bearing India Ltd., after waiving deposits.2. The common issue for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to modvat credit of capital goods, manufactured in the case of SKF Bearing India ltd. (SKF for short), and purchased in the case of the other two appeals. SKF manufactured these machines during the period and form 1.3.1994 to 31.3.1995. It filed a declaration, required under Rule 57T, on 31.3.1999. J.B.M. Tools Ltd. acquired them between April 1998 and June 1999 and field the declarations in July and August 1999. Autoline Stampings acquired the goods between October 1998 and January 1999 and filed the declaration in August 1999...

Breach Candy Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai Vs. Babulal B. Parde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1185]; 2002(2)MhLj227

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The workman in the present case, who is the First Respondent in Writ Petition No. 2021 of 1997 filed by the employer and the petitioner in companion Writ Petition No. 111 of 2000 instituted by him, was employed as a general helper in (lie Engineering Department of the Breach Candy Hospital and Research Centre on 1st January, 1975. On 13th January, 1988 a chargesheet was issued to the workman in which it was alleged that on 11th January, 1988, he was on duty between 8 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. At 12.30 p.m. a notice had been put up on the Notice Board outside the Personnel Office and after reading the said notice, the workman along with another workman U. S. Naik, who was an Air-conditioning Plant Attendant rushed towards the complainant Shri Bhaskaran, who was a General Supervisor. Shri Bhaskaran was, at the relevant time, sitting at the table provided for a General Supervisor at the Hospital. The allegation was that Shri U. S. Naik 'collared' the complainant and caught...

Jolly Steel Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003ACJ1423; AIR2001Bom435

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay, dated September 5, 1995, in Misc. Application No. 13 of 1994.2. The petitioners had filed suit on the Original Side of this Court, being Suit No. 1049 of 1974, praying for the reliefs which read thus : '8. The plaintiffs, therefore, prays : (a) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 42,628.00 p. as mentioned in para 5 above together with future Interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% p.m. from the date of the suit till full payments;(b) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs full costs of the suit;(c) that the Court may pass such other orders as may deem just and proper.' Besides the prayer clause, it would be appropriate to advert to para 5 of the plaint, which is referred to in prayer Clause (a), the same reads thus :'5. The particulars of the claim are as follows : Rs. P. 3352...

District and Sessions Judge Vs. Deelip Balaram Bedekar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2137; 2002BomCR(Cri)209; 2001CriLJ3927

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Alleged Contemner No. 1 Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, is present in the Court, as directed by us vide our order dated 10-7-2001. By the said order, we have granted exemption from personal appearance to alleged Contemner No. 2 Nishikant Anant Bhalerao for today.2. The factual matrix in which this contempt petition arises in brief is as under.On 11-2-1997, Mr. B.R. Chaudhary, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, made a Reference, through the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, to the Registrar, High Court (Appellate Side), Bombay, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that action be taken against Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, for committing the offence of criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act.The circumstances in which the said Reference was made were as under.There was a Summary Criminal Case, bearing No. 347 of 1994 ...