Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Shalimar Paints Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal before me today challenges the grant of modvat credit on the basis of the so called non-entitled paper. The assessee has taken modvat credit on the basis of delivery-cum-invoice issued by Indian Oil Corporation. The assessing authority, namely the Additional Commissioner, Nasik, has held in the order-in-original that the assessee had taken the credit on the basis of a certificate issued by a supplier of inputs. He also held that Modvat Credit Rules do not permit credit on such documents and it is not a prescribed document. He denied the same, but on an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that credit has not been merely taken on the basis of a certificate but also on the basis of gate passes. It was further held that as the inputs were received under the gate passes, the duty particulars which were not mentioned therein were furnished subsequently, the modvat credit is admissible to the respondent before me. The respondent produced before the appellate authority a ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S Essar Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for stay has been filed on the ground that the grounds mentioned in the authorisation to the appeal may be incorporated in the stay application. In the authorisation I find that it mentions inter alia that order-in-appeal is not legal and proper on the grounds mentioned in Annexure A. It does not specifically state as to how the order impugned in the appeal is wrong in the stay application. Hence stay application stands dismissed....

Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee were operating under modvat scheme. Certain inputs were received by them which were covered by gate passes issued prior to 01/04/1994. In terms of notification 16/94(NT) dated 20/04/1994 the gate passes would cease to be modvatable documents after 30/06/1994.The assessee took credit in the months of July and August, 1994. Show cause notice was issued seeking reversal of the credit so taken. In adjudication the Additional Collector noted that the physical inputs had been received before 30/06/1994. The credit was taken later since the modvatable documents were received later than the physical receipt of the inputs. Where the goods and the documents both are received after 20/06/1994 he disallowed the credit and where the inputs were physically received before that date he permitted the availment of the modvat credit. This order was reviewed by the jurisdictional Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted the notification 16/94 and accepted the claim in the rev...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Embee Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is imposition of penalty on the assessee for violation of the provisions of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the Tribunal judgment in the case of Syntex Processors v. CCE 1994 (71) ELT 386 which held that the confiscation and penalty are not imposable for evasion of the provisions of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pioneer Silk Mills case. I do not think the department can challenge the same. The grounds of appeal reveals a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. In my view, in the said case the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was not concerned with Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, but the provisions of Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. I am therefore of the view that t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. N.D. Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the application for stay no grounds have been mentioned. In the absence of any ground for stay, I am unable to agree with the prayer made by the applicant Commissioner. Hence the stay application stands dismissed....

Vidarbha Agro Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In spite of the notice, the appellant has not appeared. Registry states in the notice that the appellant has not signed in the appeal.When I checked up, it is so. However it is found in the verification portion in the memorandum of appeal that the appellant has signed.Therefore, with the consent of the DR, I have treated this as a mistake which is condonable.2. The appeal challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who by the impugned order dismissed the appeal without giving the notice of hearing. It is one thing for the appellate authority to dispose of the application filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act without giving notice, but it is a different matter when the appellate authority disposes of the appeal itself. In similar matters this Tribunal has held that disposal of the appeal without issuing proper notice is wrong in law. One of the cases in Entek IRD International (I) Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (115) ELT 515. Following the same I take up the appeal for d...

Group Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the impugned order it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appeal has been filed belatedly. On earlier occasion the matter came to the Tribunal and by its order dated 24.12.1999 certified on 11.1.2000 I have held that it is not barred by limitation.Paragraph 2 of the said order makes it very clear. When that is the finding of the Tribunal, it is binding on the appellate authority. It is represented before me by both parties that no appeal has been filed against the Tribunal's order dated 24.12.1999. When that is the point, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot go behind the finding. He has to dispose of the matter on merits. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (appeals) with a specific direction to hear the matter on merits....

Kapashi Commercial Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD265(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee challenges the orders of the IT authorities who rejected the assessee's claim for depreciation in respect of one bus and two trucks.2. The appeal arises this way. The assessee acquired one bus and two trucks. The trucks were acquired on hire-purchase from Telco. They were hired out by the assessee to M/s Shree Somnath Carriers under an agreement dt. 28th March, 1989. The bus was hired out to M/s Patel Travels under an agreement dt. 1st Jan., 1989. In the assessment, the AO, on a perusal of the agreements came to the conclusion that the bus and trucks have been sold by the assessee on hire-purchase basis to the aforesaid firms and, therefore, no depreciation was admissible. In this behalf, he took the view that the agreements referred to above were in substance hire-purchase agreements though the parties have expressly stated that the agreements shall not be construed as hire-purchase agreements. He referred to a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Shams...

Ranjana Kumar Vs. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas579(Bom)

Kochar, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for an order of winding up of the respondent-company under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), alleging failure and inability on the part of the company to pay the debts due to the petitioners being the redemption amount of the debentures held by the petitioners. The petitioners were holding two series of debentures of the respondent-company, one being 1,98,687--19.5 per cent debentures of the face value of Rs. 100 at a premium of Rs. 5 and the other being 2,00,000--14 per cent debentures of the face value of Rs. 100 at a premium of Rs. 5.2. It is alleged by the petitioners that the respondent-company failed to pay the redemption value of the shares on maturity. There is correspondence on record to indicate that the petitioners extended the time for payment from time to time and even conditionally agreed to a reduction in the interest rate. It is the contention of the petitioners that despite accommodation, the responden...

Bombay Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs. Aryadoot Transport Ltd. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1016]; (2002)IVLLJ71Bom

A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated January 7, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1051 of 1993 dismissing the said complaint on the sole ground that illegal termination of services attracts Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and not Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act and, hence, the complaint was within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. 2. The facts leading to the petition are few and may be shortly stated. Complaint (ULP) No. 1051 of 1993 has been filed by the petitioner-union espousing the cause of workman by name Bhagat The concerned workman was engaged as a Crane Operator by respondent No. 1 company in October 1989. The concerned workman was initially appointed at Kandla and, thereafter, was posted at Delhi and in November 1991 he was transferred to Mumb...