Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Eagle Flask Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the manufacture of insulated were articles, two chemicals namely polyol and isocynate are mixed in certain proportions. This mixture is poured in the panels of insulated ware where on chemical reaction the mixture hardens in situ. The Assistant Collector held that the resultant product was "rigid P.U. foam" excisable and dutiable. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision citing the judgment of the appellate Tribunal in the case of the same assessees. In the present appeal the Revenue is seeking to challenge that judgment holding that the judgment is contrary to certain judgments given by other courts. It has also been claimed that the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Moti Laminates would not apply and also that the cited judgment of the Tribunal had been appealed against the Supreme Court.2. Shri P.R. Joshi, learned consultant, shows us orders of the Supreme Court dated 1.9.1995 in Civil Appeal No. 5151 of 1990 wherein the appeal filed against the Tribunal's order ...

Katare Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 75,965/- and penalty of Rs. 55,000/-.2. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the applicant took modvat credit on the basis of documents other than duplicate copies of invoices issued by the manufacturer of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals before him for failure to deposit the entire duty as ordered by him on the stay application filed by the applicant.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that it actually took credit on the duplicate copies of the invoice. The objection that the Commissioner (Appeals) raises, that these duplicate, copies of invoices were not produced before him, is prima facie valid. That is the position before me too. The answer of the counsel for the applicant that duplicate invoices had been submitted to the Superintendent for being defaced is not, prima facie, acceptable. The rules required that these doc...

Khanbhai Esoofbhai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT712Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, we take up the appeals for disposal. These three appeals having the same facts and having been filed by the same appellant, are disposed of vide this single order.2. The appellant is engaged in the activity of ship-breaking. the ships were imported by him in February and May, 1993. The ships were cleared on payment of additional duties of customs. Modvat credit was taken on such duty paid on the first two ships but was not taken on the third vessel imported in May, 1993. Part of the goods obtained by such breaking from the ships were cleared without payment of duty in terms of certain provisions. Show cause notices were issued seeking reversal of such credit availed of. The notices presumed that the credit of additional duty was taken on the third vessel also. The assessee reversed the proportionate credit taken on the first two vessels where certain goods were cleared without payment of duty. It appears that certain other notices were sent to other ship-b...

Dulanbi Mirasaheb Belgaonkar Vs. Annappa Kurka Devadiga

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR739; 2002(1)MhLj507

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli dated 11-7-1989 in Reg. Civ. Appeal No. 288 of 1985.2. The petitioner is the tenant on monthly basis in respect of three rooms in a house situated at CIS No. 914, Pethbhag, Sangli. The respondent is the landlord. The predecessor of the respondent instituted a suit for eviction and possession of the suit premises against the petitioner on the ground of default, bona fide requirement and the petitioner having acquired alternate accommodation. The trial Court by judgment dated 10-4-1985 was pleased to dismiss the said suit and negatived all the three counts. During the pendency of the suit the respondent purchased the suit premises from the erstwhile owners-landlord. In fact it is the respondent who had entered the witness box as P.W. 1 and pursued the suit. Be that as it may, the respondent took the matter in appeal before the District Court, Sangli being R....

State of Goa, Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. J.L. Baptista, Civ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR327

K.K. Baam, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State of Goa represented by the Executive Engineer, Works Division XII, P.W.D., Sanguem, Goa, against the respondent M/s. J.L. Baptista, Civil Contractors by which the appellants seeks to challenge the judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem on 22nd December, 1993.2. The brief facts pertaining to the cause of action in this appeal is stated as under :-On 16th June, 1987, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for construction of service road along 1400 mm diameter pipe line across Sirvoi Hillock in Quepem Taluka. The contract was terminated by the appellant on 28th June, 1988. On 5th February, 1991, the respondent made claim for payment of monies against the appellant as a dispute was raised as per the terms of the agreement and as per the arbitration clause provided in the contract, the Chief Engineer appointed Shri B.V. Khandolkar as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the di...

Supertex (India) Corporation and anr. Vs. Radheshyam K. Pandey and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR670; 2001(4)BomCR723; [2002(92)FLR474]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In the two petitions which are being disposed of by this common judgment, an Order of the Industrial Court dated 30th July 1997 on a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), 1(b) and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is called into question. The Industrial Court has directed the employer to allow the complainant before it to report for duty but has confined the grant of back wages only between the period of 24th October, 1994 and 10th November, 1994. The employer challenges the Order of the Industrial Court in so far as it grants reinstatement to the workman while the workman is aggrieved by the denial of the back wages for the period after 10th November, 1994 until reinstatement. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present proceedings may be referred to as the employer and the workman.2. The employer before the Court is a proprietary firm registered under ...

Mahadeo Kundalik Vaidya and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2147; 2001CriLJ4306

Vishnu Sahai. J.1. Through this appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 22nd March 1996 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 30/1995, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for one year, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-The four Appellants are brothers inter se and are nephews of the deceased Dattarao. Their father, Kundalik, was Dattarao's brother. There was bad blood between the Appellants and deceased on account of partition of agricultural lands. A day before the incident i.e., 10-6-1994, all the four appellants took mango fruits from a tree situated on the common bund of the agricultural lands belonging to the Appellants and the deceased. The same evening when the deceased returned from the Weekly market, his son...

Sandvik Asia 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 Sandvik Asia Ltd, the appellant, was entitled to take modvat credit on inputs cleared from the factory of their manufacture on or before 31.3.1994 but received by it after 1.7.1994.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that, in the light of notification 16/94 issued by the Central Government, the gate passes ceased to be a valid document for taking credit after 30.6.1994.3. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE vs. Travancore Chemicals & Mfg Co Ltd. 1997 (20) RLT 588. In this decision, the Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, has held that credit could be validly taken even after 30.6.1994 on gate passes issued prior 31.3.1994.4. Accordingly, applying the ratio of the decision, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Baker Mercer Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal by the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that various measuring and checking instruments, which the respondent purchased for use in its factory, would not be entitled to be considered capital goods under Rule 57Q. He however held that by application of the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in TELCO vs. Collector 1994 (70) ELT 75, they would be entitled to be considered as inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A and credit specified therein available.2. The challenge to this conclusion is on the ground that the goods were not inputs as specified in Rule 57A and the Tribunal's decision that the Commissioner has relied upon has been appealed. The second ground itself is insufficient. However, it is brought to my notice that the decision of the Tribunal is no longer good law in the light of the decision of the larger bench in CCE vs Surya Roshni 2001 (42) RLT 817.This decision was rendered by the larger bench which was set up in orde...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Continental Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On a visit to the premises of Continental Chemicals, the manufacturer who is the respondent to this appeal, the departmental officers found that 363 kilograms of paracetamol manufactured by it had not been entered in the RGI register. It also found some other discrepancies with which we are not concerned in this Appeal. A notice was issued proposing confiscation of the paracetamol under Rule 173Q.The Assistant Collector passed orders confiscating the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) said that the provisions of Rule 173Q would not apply. The goods were manufactured on 27.2.1992, the date on which the officers visited the factory. There was therefore no mens rea on its part. He therefore set aside the confiscation. This is challenged in the appeal.2. The ground in the appeal is that the provisions of Rule 173Q would be attracted for the reason that the goods were are not accounted for in the R.G.I. register....