Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Beemac Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is admitted. I decline to adjourn the stay application.The ground for adjournment, that the applicant's consultant is out of station is insufficient, in the absence of any valid reason for his absence today.2. I have read the stay application and the appeal. The appeal does not question the finding of the Commissioner that packing charges are includable in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the applicant.3. The duty of Rs. 48,286/- has been demanded, and a penalty of Rs. 4000/- imposed, in addition, on the ground that the applicant took credit without prior sanction in its modvat account of a sum equal to the rebate payable on the goods that it exported, and availed modvat credit in excess of the amounts mentioned in the invoice of the supplier of inputs. The grounds in the stay application are that the deposit of the amount would cause financial hardship and that the Assistant Commissioner has ignored the principles of natural justice.Neither of these gro...

M/S Suyash Sankalp Export (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application if for waiver of duty of Rs.19,13221/- and imposition of penalty of Rs.2 lakhs. The Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appal if proceeded on the basis of the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise Customs, Pune made in Order certified No. 46/CEX/90 dt. 20.11.90 it has to be mentioned hear that the Tribunal by its Order No.C-II/2455-2463/WZB-2000 dt.30.8.2000 in Appeals No. 5240 to 5246, 762, 763/91A has reserved to findings of the order dt. 20.11.90 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.Since the basis of the order under which the impugned order has been passed has been knocked off, we are of the view that the appellants have made out a prima facie case. We therefore grant waiver of the duty and penalty and grant unconditional stay during the pendency of the appeals....

Ved Prakash Sahi and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of penalties under Section 112 of the Act of Rs 1.00 lakh by Lalit R. Mehta and Rs 50,000/- each by Markande Singh and Kanaiyalal Shah.2. Mr Krishna Swamy, advocate for Lalit Mehta and Kanhaiyalal Shah, sought adjournment on the ground that Mr Chaturvedi, advocate for these applicants was out of town. HE is not able to say why he is out of town and why he is not available to day. The contention in this application for adjournment that Mr Chaturvedi appeared in the above two cases previously is confusing. It is for the first time that the matter has come up. In the absence of any valid explanation, I decline to adjourn and invited Mr Krishna Swamy to make his submissions, which he declined to do. Thereafter I read the applications and heard Kiran Kanal, advocate for the applicants Ved Prakash Sahi.3. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner finds that these four applicants were actively involved in an attempt to claim...

M/S Shaper Chemicals Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications relate to appeals arising out of the same order.In fact even if the impugned order bears one order,m action has been taken against three assessee units and 17 persons concerned therewith and or transactions connected with the three companies its the order portion shows, the Ld. Commissioner has dealt with a number of notices.The first part of his order relates to M/s. Shaper Chemicals ld. their directors and employees and other persons who aided and abetted their wrong availment of modvat credit. The other portions of the order cover the other two assessee companies and some of the people who have been penalised in the first set of proceedings, have been penalised in the 2nd and 3rd proceedings also in their capacity has aiders and abettors.Thus in the same order penalties have been imposed upon certain person in disposal of more than one show cause notice.2. In this situations the question that was asked to Shri V.S. Nankani, appearing for M/s. Shaper Chemicals ...

Shivaji Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT797Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to credit under Rule 57R of the duty paid on machines which the appellant used in its factory to make sand moulds and sand cores which were in turn used for casting articles of metal. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that, since sand moulds and sand cores were exempted from payment of duty by notification 46/94, the prohibition contained in Sub rule (1) of Rule 57R that credit will not be available on capital goods if it exclusively is used for making goods exempted from duty or subject to nil rate of duty is attracted and credit was not available.2. The counsel for the appellant contends that sand moulds and sand cores are themselves as not excisable commodity, and not capable of being marketed. They are used exclusively for the manufacture of casting and they have no other use. Therefore, he says, that moulding machines which are...

Madhukar Baburao Deshmukh Vs. Jalgaon Jillha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR805; 2002(3)MhLj201

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 4-9-2000 passed by the Minister for State (Co-operation) in exercise of powers stated to have beenexercised under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction inasmuch as, the revisional powers under Section 154 of the said Act are sought to be exercised against the order of the revisional authority itself; Secondly, that the respondent having withdrawn the writ petition No. 5477 of 1999 without any leave or liberty to pursue any other remedy, had abandoned his claim and, therefore, was not entitled to agitate the same in revisional jurisdiction.4. The/acts in brief, relevant for the decision are that, the petitioner herein filed revision application No. 57/1998 before the Divisional Joint Reg...

Pragji Vrindavan Premises Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR459

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.The First Petitioner is a Co-operative Society which has registered on 29th April, 1978 under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('the Act'). Under a Deed of Conveyance executed on 20th July, 1977 the First Petitioner has become an absolute owner of the land bearing No. 20/24. Dhirubhai Marg, Bombay - 400 002. Accordingly, it has been stated that Index II has been obtained by the Petitioners evidencing that the First Petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. Prior to the execution of the Deed of Conveyance, a building known as Pragji Vrindavan Mala occupied by several tenants stood on the aforesaid piece of land. The said building was over a hundred years old. The tenants formed a Co-operative Society by the name of Pragji Vrindavan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., the First Petitioner, which in turn purchased the property from the original landlords who were the trustees of a trust known as the Dwarkadas Pragji Vrindavan Charitable Trust. O...

Pragji Vrindavan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom6; 2001(4)BomCR748; (2001)4BOMLR578; 2002(1)MhLj298

1. The first petitioner is a Co-operative Society which was registered on 29th April, 1978 under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('the Act'). Under a Deed of Conveyance executed on 20th July, 1977 the first petitioner has become an absolute owner of the land bearing No. 20/24, Dhirubhai Marg, Bombay-400 002. Accordingly, it has been stated that Index II has been obtained by the petitioners evidencing that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. Prior to the execution of the Deed of Conveyance, a building known as Pragji Vrindavan Mala occupied by several tenants stood on the aforesaid piece of land. The said building was over a hundred years old. The tenants formed a Co-operative Society by the name of Pragji Vrindavan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., the first petitioner, which in turn purchased the property from the original landlords who were the trustees of a trust known as the Dwarkadas Pragji Vrindavan Charitable Trust. On 17th April 1988, ...

indya Sega Valvi Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2360; 2001CriLJ4804

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this Appeal, the Appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1994, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under.The Appellant is the husband of the deceased Surtabai, who was the daughter of Fulya Kama Vasave, P.W.8. At the time of the incident, the Appellant and the deceased were staying in village Asali, taluka Akrani, district Dhule. On 6th February 1994, at about 4 p.m., they left the house of Fulya Kama Vasave, P.W.8. Some times thereafter, they passed through the road by the side of public well in the field of Rodwa Satya situated near a nursery. At that time, they were quarrelling and the Appellant was beating Surtabai by c...

M/S Manik Shankar Shete Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant was a gold dealer, 359.60 gms of gold totally valued at Rs. 83,111/- was seized from the shop premises of the appellant since they were not entered in the prescribed registers. The claim of the appellant was that he had brought the gold to the shop on the same date on which the search was made and that he did not have sufficient time to make the entry in the prescribed register. The lower authorities did not accept this version.2. The ld.Counsel before us does not contest the case on merits but pleads leniency on the quantum of fine and penalty.3. We find that the offence is a technical nature an accepting the plea for leniency, we reduce the quantum of fine from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand) an the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand). The appeal is disposed of in these terms....