Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

South Asia Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT1107Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 6,05,776 and penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs.2. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the ground that the applicant took credit based on invoice covering the receipts of its inputs more than six moths after their issue, contrary to the provisions of clause (2) of first proviso under rule 57G(2). The contentions of the counsel for the applicant are two. The first is that, the provisions of this clause of the proviso would not apply to the documents in question. It was inserted in the statements taken on 29.6.95 whereas the last of the documents was issued on 15.5.95. The proviso will apply only to documents issued after the amendment came on to the statute. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in CCE vs. Vishnu Sugar Mills Co. 1993 (31) RLT 185 holding to this effect. He also says that in any event, the inputs were sent to Ceat Ltd. for some job work in terms of rule 57J. The provisions of rule 57J being a non-obstants will ove...

Asian Advertisers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides, the appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 14,22,681/- and penalty of RS. 70,000/-.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the duty in the belief that in the manufacture of exported goods input stage credit had been availed of by the manufacturer thereby contravening the provisions of Notification No.203/92 Cus. He mentioned that the importers had not filed any reply to the show cause notice nor had they appeared for personal hearing. In the appeal memorandum it is claimed that the importers had neither received the show cause notice nor the intimation for personal hearing. The principal claim made is that the exported goods were exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification O.14/92-C.E. and therefore, the question of taking modvat credit did not arise. The non availment was certified by the jurisdictional officer.3. In view of the submissions, we deem it proper to allow the appeal and re...

Atic Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant could take "the high notional credit" i.e. credit equal to the duty payable on goods which were actually cleared on payment of duty at the rate specified in notification 175/86 and could be taken during the period when the notification has ceased to exist.2. The identical question has been answered by the decision of the Tribunal in Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. vs. CCE 2000 (126) ELT 726 by saying that since Rule 57B was not taken on the date on which credit was taken, and the duty was paid in terms of a notification which contained the provisions that such higher credit could be taken. The fact that the notification was not in force on the date on which credit was taken would not stand in the way of such higher credit availability....

M/S B.G. Shirke and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufactured and supplied certain materials for building construction. Show cause notice dated 27.9.88 alleged that construction of materials such as building blocks etc. as well as windows and ventilators made by the appellants were "goods" in terms of the Central Excise law. It was alleged that they manufactured and cleared the goods without payment of duty. It was further alleged that in doing so, they had not obtain licence nor had they maintained statutory registers. Demand for duty was made amounting to Rs. 2,95,211.85 for the articles of cement manufactured during the period 1.4.85 to 27.2.86; duty amounting to Rs. 4,39,580.55 was demanded on windows and ventilators manufactured during the period 1.4.86 to 5.5.88. Show cause notice invoked the extended period claiming suppression etc. with intent to evade duty. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner passed orders confirming the duties as shown above, imposing penalty of Rs. One lakh and ordering confisca...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise and Vs. M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents in this case took modvat credit of the additional duty of Customs paid twice in as much as on the same date two entries were made in the concerned register on 13.10.92. They had voluntarily reversed this on 5.11.92 when this fact came to their notice. Later, show cause notice was issued on 28.12.92 seeking imposition of penalty upon them. The Asstt.Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.13 lakhs upon them. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. One lakh.The present appeal is against this order from the Revenue.2. The pleas mae in the appeal memorandum is that for imposition of penalty, there need not be any culpability but that mere non compliance with the dictate of the was rule invite penalty. It is urged that the reduction in the penalty is not warranted.3. We find that the Id. Commissioner has given elaborate reasonings for coming to the conclusion that the quantum of penalty required reduction. The entire logic of the Id. Commissioner in his order ma...

Shri Bhagavati Bright Bars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant received a consignment of steel wire rods from its manufacturer, the Bhilai Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and took credit of the duty paid on these goods in its modvat account. This was objected to by the department on the ground that why the issue in question was sent to him for verification, the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the Bhilai Steel plant had raised some objections. The Asst. Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) held that credit was not available. Hence this appeal.3. The Superintendent of Central Excise at Rajkot had referred to his counterpart at Bhilai seven invoices issued by Bhilai Steel Plant "to confirm the authentication of the payment of excise duty by the manufacturer of excisable inputs." This letter was returned by the Superintendent Bhilai finding all but one document in order. With regard to that one invoice, which is the one that we are concerned with, he has...

Mukund Shivaram Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR700; (2001)4BOMLR418; 2001(4)MhLj656

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The present writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Deputy Collector (Acquisition), Thane, Forest (Private Forests) Division, dated 28th July, 1979, in an enquiry held under section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1978 (for short, 'Amendment Act of 1978'). By this order, the petitioner's land stood acquired and vested in the State Government. The order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the petitioners in revision under section 22A(4) of the Amendment Act of 1978, before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 25th January, 1989 solely on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. Both these orders are under challenge in the instant petition. 2. The land involved in the present petition is Survey No. 79 (Part), admeasuring 1 Hectare and 40 Ares situated at village Brahmangaon, Taluka Wada, District Thane (for short, 'the ...

Prafull Moreshwar Wagh Vs. Amravati Divisional Secondary and Higher Se ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR9; 2001(4)BomCR312; (2001)4BOMLR925; 2001(4)MhLj346

R. M. Lodha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was pursuing his studies of XIIth Standard (Science) in S. F. L. High School and Junior College in the academic year 1999-2000. During the academic session from June, 1999 to 15.10.1999, there were 94 working days and the petitioner attended on 78 working days while for the academic session from 16.10.1999 to 5.2.2000, there were 75 working days, but the petitioner only attended classes on 32 working days. Thus, for the first session from June, 1999 to 15.10.1999, the petitioner had attended 83% of classes while for the second session, the petitioner had attended 42.6% of classes. On 7.2.2000, the Principal of the S. F. L. High School and Junior College sent a communication to the petitioner's father that petitioner had remained absent for longer period than permissible and, therefore, he would not be entitled to appear in the examination being held at the end of February, 2000. On 10.2.2000, the principal of the...

Tukaram Narayan Margam Vs. Narsingh Giriji Mill, Solapur

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR698; 2002(1)MhLj930

1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Solapur dated 19th September 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1986.2. The petitioner claims to be in occupation of the premises being room No. 175, consisting of four rooms in Municipal House No. 60/4, Murarji Peth, Solapur. The respondent plaintiff instituted a suit before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, J. D., Solapur being Regular Civil Suit No. 483 of 1982 for possession of the suit property. The plaint as filed by the respondent would admit the position that the respondent was a textile mill and a public limited company which went into liquidation in the year 1957. The mill properties including the suit premises were auctioned pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. That the Government of Maharashtra purchased the mill properties in the said Court auction. It is also admitted that Government of Maharashtra thereafter got the mill m...

Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Limited Vs. Sunil Rambhau Iwale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR870; [2001(91)FLR1079]; 2002(4)MhLj151

R.M.S. Khanderparkar, J.1. The point for consideration which arise in this petition is whether in the absence of undisputed or undisputable employer-employee relationship between the parties, can the question of unfair labour practice be enquired into by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as the 'said Act')?2. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of Seamless Metal Tubes and has its factory at C-1, M.I.D.C. Industrial Estate at Ahmednagar. The respondents No. 1 to 12 are the employees engaged by M/s Industrial Cleaning Services - the respondent No. 13 to whom the petitioner had given a contract for gardening, cleaning conservancy etc.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents No. 1 to 12 are not the employees of the petitioner nor the petitioner is the employer of the said respondents within the meaning of said expression under the...