Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Ayodha Prasad Devidayal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR694; (2001)4BOMLR398; 2001(4)MhLj255

D.B. Bhosale, J.By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th July, 1986 passed by the Deputy Collector and competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration Thane and order dated 28th March, 1989 passed by the Additional Collector, Thane in appeal bearing No. ULC/A/33/86, filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has taken exception to the aforesaid orders, on the ground that the authorities below have committed grave error in treating the co-owners of the property as a single person within the meaning of section 2(i) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and'Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short 'Act of 1976') and have defined the benefit of an independent ceiling limit under section 4(1) to the co-owners.2. The facts leading to the instant petition are as follows : The deceased father of the petitioner Shri Devidayal Ramdin Pandey and one Tapsi Bindeshwari Partdey purchased land bearing Survey No- 191/1, 192/2 and 199/3 admeasuring 14,416.90 sq. mtrs. by registered sale deed dat...

Gujarat Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In both these orders, an amount of Rs. 52,683 is demanded. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicant took modvat credit on the basis of invoice which were not yet complied with the provisions of law.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. It contends in the stay application that grounds on which the show cause notice issued was proposed to deny the credit that the invoices were issued by person incompetent to issue them. Whereas the duty has been confirmed on different ground, that the invoice did not contain relevant particulars.3. The department representative adopts the reasoning in the impugned order. Although the applicant's contention is not entirely without merit, I therefore direct that the applicant shall keep unutilised in the modvat account pending the appeal Rs. 20,000/-. Subject to this condition, I waive deposit of the duty demanded and stay its recovery.Compliance on 14.9.2001....

Universal Medicap Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1321Tri(Mum.)bai

1. I have heard the counsel for the applicant on the application which seeks to correct three mistakes apparent on the record.2. The first is that the bench has not taken satisfactory note of the plea that accounts could not be maintained for the period from 1.12.99 to 30.12.99 for the reason that "situation was tense" as a result of demolition of Babri mosque at Ayodhya. The bench has recorded this plea, but there is no specific finding on it. Therefore this plea has been considered by me.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that as a result of the prevailing tension following this demolition, the person who kept the account, living at Vadodara was not able to travel to Ramia about 29 km away. The counsel stated that the demolition took place on 6.12.99. He is not able to explain the failure to enter the accounts from 1st to 7th December. Again, it was put to the counsel for the applicant that the common understanding was that there was in reality no disturbance in l...

Shalimar Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exicse

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 5,49,796 and penalty imposed of Rs. 1.22 lakhs.3. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on two grounds. First, except for Rs. 3400/- duty has been demanded on the ground that there was a shortage on verification of inputs used by the applicant in its manufacture of finished product when compared to the stock on which modvat credit has been taken. The contention of the representative of the applicant is that there is in reality no shortage; the applicant had a practice of making entries for issue of inputs only once in a month. This explained the failure to record entries relating to inputs for the period from 1.12.95 to 21.12.95. He contends that, by taking into account the private records of the applicant, utilisation of these inputs allegedly shout in the manufacture of finished product can be established.4. The departmental representative disputes the reliability of private record particularly at this stage.5. The acce...

M/S Metaplast India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The importers/appellants imported a consignment of "Defective Kraft Paper". The Dy.Chemical Examiner opined that the goods are `Base Paper'. The Commissioner enhanced the value, confiscated the gods for mis-declaration and also imposed penalty upon the importers. Hence, this appeal and the application for stay.2. Counsel of the appellants produced correspondence with the Asstt.Commissioner SIIB,Kandla requesting that the samples be got tested by competent laboratory such as India Institute of Technology or Indian institute of Packaging or Institute of Paper Technology. This was not accepted nor was any reference made thereto in the impugned order. Counsel submits that even now samples could be taken and tested.3. Whereas `Kraft paper' is a term having both scientific and technical connotation the word `base paper' is used in a very loose manner. It does not term the chemical characteristic of the paper. Although, the staff in the Customs laboratory are competent, they have to deal ...

Syngenta India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application, we find that the issue stands decided. Hence, we take up the case for final disposal on granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,18,427/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the process of crushing, grinding and sieving of Soap Stone amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In holding so he relied upon the following judgements:Associated Soapstone Distributing Company Pvt.Ltd. vs CCE, Indone [1985(22) ELT 109(Tri);Oriental Talc. Products Pvt.Ltd. Udaipur vs. CCE, Jaipur [1984(18) ELT 657(Tri). He also refers to note 2 of Chapter 25 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Chartered Accountant for the appellants shows us the Tribunal judgement in the case of Wolkem India Limited vs CCE, Jaipur [1997(92) E.L.T. 219(Tri) in which it was held that such activity did not amount to manufacture. The appeal filed by the Revenue against this order was dismissed b...

Hindustan Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is engaged in ship breaking. It utilises the additional duties of Customs paid on the importation of the ship towards payment of excise duty on the scrap and other materials obtained by breaking of the ship. It appears that, the departmental officers directed ship breakers at Alang, where the appellant located, to make a deposit in terms of Rule 57CC(1),on the ground that as a result of the breaking up of the ship exempted product fuel oil contained in the ship emerged. The position was clarified by circular of the Board that these goods were not excisable and the provision of rule 57CC(1)will not apply.3. On receipt of this clarification the appellant reversed the entry that it had earlier made in the modvat account in pursuance of the departments directions. This resulted in the issue of notice to the appellant proposing recovery of the amount on the ground that there was no lega...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maximaa Systems Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent manufacturer could avail of notification 1/93 in such a manner that it could pay the concessional rate of duty consequent on availing of modvat credit in respect of some products and simultaneously avail of full exemption of duty where modvat credit is not availed of for the others. Adjudicating on the notice issued to the manufacturer, the Asst. Collector had held that this course of action was not permissible and if the assessee avails of concessional assessment consequent upon making available the modvat facility, he is not entitled to take complete exemption from duty with regard to any product. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Swaraj Paints Industries vs. CCEAbhilash Rubber Products vs.CCE 1991 (56) ELT 168 and that is permissible. This conclusion is challenged in this appeal.2. The respondent is absent and unrepresented and by i...

Mamta Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeals are limited to penalty imposed on Mamta Silk Mills P.Ltd., Mahendrasingh Singhvi, managing director, Umesh S. Doctor, excise clerk, and A.V. Sales Corporation, and confiscation of van and processed fabrics processed by Mamta Silk Mills.2. In the common order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner demanded duty, ordered confiscation and imposed penalty on the ground that the processor did not pay the duty due of the fabric processed by it. He has invoked the provision of 209A so far as A.V. Sales Corporation is concerned. The alleged evasion of duty took place in 1992. Applying the ratio of the judgement in Pioneer Silk Mills vs. UOI 1995 (80) ELT 507 penalties and confiscation adjudicated will have to be held contrary to law.3. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Impugned order to that extent set aside....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Surat Beverages P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents manufactured aerated waters, packed in glass bottles. Credit of duty paid on such bottles was taken by them.Initially. aerated waters were subjected to specific rate of duty. From 1.3.94, the specific rates were changed to and valoram rates. The view was held that the credit of duty taken on the glass bottles lying in stock on that date was required to be reversed on the ground that glass bottles being durable and returnable in nature the value thereof was not included in computing the assessable value of the aerated waters.It was also held that the rental charges paid by the manufacturers for carrying crates was addable to the assessable value. The Astt.Commissioner confirmed the dues on these grounds. The Commissioner(appeals) reversed in decision. Hence, the present appeal from Revenue. The issue whether in similiar circumstances the credit not utilised was reversible or not, does not seem to have come for consideration. We have seen the judgement of the Kerala H...