Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Avinash V. Mhapankar Vs. Prabhakar S. Kelkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR708

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Raigad-Alibag dated 30th August, 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1983.2. The petitioner is the successor in interest of original tenant Vitthalrao Sakharam Mhapankar. The respondent No. 1 landlord had filed suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under the special provisions of section 13A-1(i) of the Bombay Rent Act, being Air Force personnel. Undisputedly, the premises were occupied by original tenant Vitthalrao for residential purpose, whereas the ground of bona fide requirement pressed into service by the respondent No. 1 landlord was for starting of photography business. It is also not in dispute that in all there are 4 tenements in house No. 591 situated within the Municipal Limits at Alibag. When the suit was instituted at the relevant time, block Nos. 1 and 3 were already in occupation of respondent No. 1 landlord. He wanted the ...

Bombay Environmental Action Group and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR434

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule in terms of order dated 7.5.1999. Since all the parties are ready for final hearing, with consent of the counsel for the parties the petitions are taken up for disposal.The above petitions, giving rise to the Public Interest Litigation assail the decision of the State of Maharashtra to construct fly overs in the island city of Mumbai in general and Andheri Fly over in particular for north and south traffic along Western Express Highway covering three Junctions, namely, Bahar Junction, Gold spot Junction and Andheri Kurla Road Junction at Mumbai.FACTUAL BACKGROUND MATRIX2. Broadly indicated, the facts taken from Writ Petition No. 657/1999 are as under:Petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act ('Society' for short). The aims and objects of the society are inter alia, to look after the environment in all its aspects. The petitioner No. 2 is the Honorary Secretary of the society and has been working in the environmental movement for ...

M/S Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT351Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These five appeals namely C/398,399, 502,501 and 503/01-. Mum have been filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat made in order-in-original No.1/MP/01 dated 30.1.2001 demanding duty of Rs.47,52,693/- on the assessee and imposing penalties of various amounts on the assessee as well as other purchasers. The crux of the matter is that the assessee is a 100% EOU.In the year 1999 it manufactured processed man-made fabrics and instead of exporting it has sold the same in the domestic tariff area. In terms of the provisions of section 3 of the Central Excise Act for removal of such goods and selling the same in domestic tariff area central excise duty is to be levied. The main order refers to the show cause notice having been issued under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 28AB and section 72 of the same Act. The main contention of the appellant before us is that before the duty under the Central Excise Act is demanded th...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/S Arj Overseas P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the Revenue was argued by Shri A.K. Jain, JDR. Shri J.C. Patel, advocate, appeared for the respondents.2. Certain goods were exported under the DEEC Scheme. These were re-imported by another person. The Assistant Commissioner directed the importers to reimburse the government the quantum of benefit availed by the original exporters and also directed payment of CVD. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision of reimbursement but maintained the directions to pay the CVD. In doing so, he relied upon the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Pelisetty Somasundaram (P) Ltd. vs. GOI 1984 (17) ELT 306. Against the judgment the Revenue have filed the appeal inter alia claiming that the cited judgment of the High Court had been challenged by the Revenue.3. We find that the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the ratio of the judgment as reported in 1999 (113) ELT 378. We do not find any reason to follow the cited judgment of the Tribunal reported in 1998 (10...

Amal Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT230Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara impugned in this appeal confirmed the demand, made in the notice dated 19.6.1995, for reversal of modvat credit alleged to be wrongly taken by the assessee during the period between July, 1990 and June, 1991. The notice alleged that the part of the duty paid on beta-napthol by its manufacturer which represented set-off available under notification 432/86 would not be available as credit.2. Counsel for the appellant agrees that on merits the issue is settled against the appellant by the decision of the Tribunal in Abhijit Chemicals Vs. CCE 1998 (102) ELT 105. He, however, challenges the Commissioner's order on the ground of limitation. The notice, he says, alleges suppression of facts without indicating the precise nature of the suppression. The Commissioner's order, the further says, goes on the footing that the extended period was available because "the assessee had not separated the amount of set off as indicated in the Ga...

M/S Karan Fibres and Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, the appeal itself was taken up for final disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.24,29,552/-.2. Modvat credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Karan Fibres and Fabrics Ltd. and M/s. Excell Chem who were the dealers, had been denied on the ground that the dealers had not registered themselves with the excise department. Against this decision of the Assistant Commissioner, the assessee field an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed them to pre-deposit 50% of the contested duty. The assessees sought reconsideration of the orders but the Commissioner dismissed the appeal for their failure to comply with the relevant provisions. Hence the present appeal.3. It is shown on records that Karan Fibres and Fabrics Ltd. were registered with the department as dealers on 14.8.1994. In terms of the prevalent instructions the invoices by unregistered dealers were also acceptable provided the dealers subsequently got registered upto 31.1...

indabrator Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit by the appellant of the duty paid on chemicals used in the manufacture of sand moulds which are in turn used for the manufacture of castings of metals.2. By the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial by the Assistant Collector of the credit that the appellant took on the ground that sand moulds were exempted from payment of duty by notification 177/86, and therefore the provisions of Rule 57D will come into play. The Assistant Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) have relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal to support their views. However, subsequent to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order the larger bench of the Tribunal has found in Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 1996 (82) ELT 575, that sand moulds are not marketable, and therefore not excisable. They are brought into existence for the sole purpose of casting the metal, and therefore, ch...

Joy Silk Mills and Others Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1068Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts needed for the disposal of these appeals are, briefly, as follows: 2. United Engineering, Advance Engineering, Ace Machines Pvt. Ltd., Shree Machines Pvt. Ltd., Paragaon Machines Pvt. Ltd., Paragon Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and Century Machines Pvt. Ltd., all are negaged in the manufacture of parts of textile machines. Joy Silk Mills, Life Bond Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Life Bond Sales & Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Contempra Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., bough parts of such machines from these manufactures who cleared them on payment of duty and sent them to Flamingo Machines Pvt. Ltd. This Company assembles these parts into complete textile machines such as twisting machines, uptwisters and looms. After assembly and testing, Flamingo Machines Pvt. Ltd., dismantles these into their constituent parts and returns them to these four units. These units in turn supply these parts, required for setting up of each machine to various buyers. The parts are assembled at site once again by Con...

R.D. Desai and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1086Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are taken up with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed each of these appeals before him on the ground that the appeals did not bear the required court fee stamp. No notice was issued to the appellant to remedy this defect before the order of dismissal was passed. Failure to affix court fee stamp is a curable defect, and an opportunity should have been provided to the appellant to cure the defect before dismissing the appeal.3. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside. The common counsel for the appellants undertakes that the required court fee stamp will be affixed on each appeal within a month from the receipt of this order and the fact intimated to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) shall thereafter dispose of the appeals in accordance with law....

Gupta Concast Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. The appellant manufacture steel ingots, from out of ferrous scrap.It received a number of consignments of such scrap from Akar Tools Pvt.Ltd., a 100% export oriented unit, and took credit of the duty shown to have been paid in the invoices issued by that Company which accompanied each of these consignments, at 15% ad valorem. The three notices issued to it alleged that the duty correctly payable by Akar Tools Pvt. Ltd. was the basic duty and additional duties of customs applicable to such goods imported by it. The additional duty component would be only 7.5% ad valorem, which alone could be taken as credit. This would make available are an amount of credit lower than the credit taken by the applicant. Therefore, credit in excess of this amount was proposed to be disallowed. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, holding that the manufacture was required to pay Rs. 1.77 ...