Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Usha Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufactured pig iron. Copper tubes/pipes and rods were inserted in the glass furnace to increase the temperature. Tubes also carried air necessary for melting. These inputs ultimately got melted and formed part of the molten mass. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that these were used in these manner. He, however, termed these as appliances and denied the benefit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, the appeal.2. The issue stands covered in a number of judgments in favour of the assessee. In view of the judgment in the contrary, the issue was referred to and was settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd {2000 (93) ECR 683 (Tri}. In this judgment, such pipes were held to be admissible input under Rule 57A.The metal of which pipes were made is not the material aspect. The ratio of this judgment applies to the present appeal. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefit....

Wadhwa Intracare Steel P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order of the Commissioner impugned in the appeal there is no demand of any duty; it fixes the annual production capacity of the applicant and communicates the monthly duty payable consequently....

Ambaji Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of the amounts mentioned against each :-Name Duty Penalty Redemption FineAmbaji Syntex Pvt. Rs. 1.79 crores Rs. 1.79 crores Rs. 20,000/- Ltd., Karanj approx approxAmbaji Syntex Pvt. Rs. 1.50 crores Rs. 1.50 crores Rs. 20,000/- Ltd., PipodaraMahesh Texturisers Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 20,000/-Somani International Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 20,000/-Shankarlal Rs. 50,000/-Maheshbhai Rs. 50,000/- 2. We have heard the Counsel for the applicants and the departmental representative.3. Mahesh Texturisers Ltd. and Somani International texture partially oriented yarn which they receive from the manufacturer. Duty has been demanded from them on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 1/93, for the reason that they affixed the customers brand names on the bobbins on which the yarn was wound. The Counsel for the applicant says that prima facie the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Khanna Industries v. CCE -...

Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur Vs. Gurnamsingh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri B.B. Sarkar. Shri Gurnamsingh, the respondent argued his own case.2. Shri Gurnamsingh was intercepted at Nagpur Railway Station and from his possession 5 VCRs were seized. A number of baggage receipts were also seized which on verification were found to be fake. These goods were confiscated. Shri Gurnamsingh deposed that he had purchased the goods as also the receipts from the market. This statement was corroborated by another person viz. Jainuddin who accompanied him. In reply to the show cause notice Shri Gurnam Singh presented 5 baggage receipt. One of the receipts was in his own name supporting importation of one VCR. He also produced sale deeds recorded on stamp papers which were purchased by him prior to the date of interception. The Addl.Collector accepted that the baggage receipts later produced might have been genuine but doubted whether they related to the goods under seizure. He observed that the sale deeds were not witness...

Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the admissibility of modvat credit on (1) fork lift truck and (2) Hydrolic Mobile Crane as capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order denied the benefit holding that these goods did not contribute to manufacturing or processing of inputs. He also relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner, Pune.2. Subsequent to the passing of the judgment, in a number of cases, the Tribunal had occasion to examine the admissibility of such goods. Fork lift trucks and cranes were held as admissible under Rule 57Q of CER, 1944 in a number of judgments which were listed and followed by the Single Member of Tribunal in the judgment reported in 2000(123) ELT 770(T). The issue being so settled in favour of the assessee, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, as per law....

Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT303Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The two applications are for restoration of the appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed on 25.1.1999 by the Tribunal on merits.2. Appeal E4393/95 is sought to be restored on the ground that the Tribunal in its order did not deal with the "shuttering" and "cantering", which are stated to be the subject matter of the goods in the appeal. The order dismissing that appeal is recalled. That appeal to be listed for hearing.3. Restoration of the other appeal is sought on the ground that the adjournment sought by the counsel for the appellant was not granted It is not our understanding that adjournment can be claimed as a right.If, once the Tribunal having found that there was no ground for adjournment, the Tribunal declines to adjourn the matter and proceeds to deal with the appeal ex parte, it may be open to the party, who feels aggrieved by such a decision, to appeal that order in accordance with law. In our judgment, the Court or the Tribunal, even wrongly declined to adjourn...

Radha Mohan Processors, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waving deposit.2. Each of the appellants is a textile processor, and duty had been demanded from them and penalty on them, on the ground that they did not pay the duty determined in terms of Hot Air Stentor Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.3. Each of the appellants contended before the Commissioner that in determining the capacity of the stentor, the rail length of the gallery which was part of the stentor has to be excluded. The Commissioner has held that these galleries cannot be excluded prior to 1.3.2000, on which date the rules were amended to explicitly provided for their exclusion. He had following the decision of the Tribunal in C.M. Paints (Pvt) Ltd v. CCE 2000 (12) Elt 829, held that during the period prior to this date rail length of the gallery has to be included. That decision is no longer good law, having been overruled by the larger bench in its decision in San...

S.N. Thapa and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ201CAT

1. The applicants in the above five O. As have impugned the action of the respondents in issuing the orders dated 7.2.1996. In those orders, it has been stated that the President is satisfied that under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution in the interest of the security of State. It is not expedient to hold an inquiry in each of their cases and they were dismissed from service with immediate effect. Learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the relevant facts and issues are similar in these cases and hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The legal arguments submitted by Mr.G.K. Masand, learned Counsel in S.N. Thapa v. Union of India and Ors.(O.A. 385/96) have also been adopted by the learned Counsel in the other four cases. In the circumstances, for the sake of convenience, the facts and issues raised in O.A. 385/96 have been referred to and such other arguments the others have advanced...

Saral Enterprises Vs. Ac (inv)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD558(Mum.)

1. These appeals of the assessee have been directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-XXV which were passed for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 on 29-1-1993 and for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 were passed on 17-5-1995 and 24-3-1995 respectively. One consolidated order is being passed in these cases as the issues involved are common for the sake of convenience and brevity. The various grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee firm pertains to the following issues: (i) Disallowance of Rs. 67, 56, 589 being the interest payable to K.J. Somaiya Trust. (ii) Disallowance of a sum of Rs. 20,000, treating the same as capital expenditure. (iii) Treating the lease rent from President of India of Rs. 7, 55, 515 as income from other sources. (v) Claim of the expenditure as the project stood completed during the year. (i) Disallowance of Rs. 24,58, 150 being the interest payable to K.J. Somaiya Trust. (ii) The addition of interest of Rs. 2,460 payable to M/s. Viral Enterprise...

Micoperi S.P.A. Milano Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD369(Mum.)

1. These cross appeals by the assessee and the Department have been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai, dt. 31st Jan., 1992 for the asst. yr. 1985-86. We are disposing of these appeals with one consolidated order as the issues involved are identical, for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. The assessee is a limited company incorporated under the laws of Italy. The company was engaged in the business of engineering, transportation, installation of platforms, raisers, pipe laying and testing site services etc. During the year, the assessee entered into two sub-contracts, one with M/s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Korea (hereinafter referred to as HHI) on 5th Dec., 1982 and another with Mazagaon Dock Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as MDL). Both the HHI and MDL had entered into main contract with Oil & Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as ONGC). Under the said sub-contracts, HHI and MDL were obliged to discharge corporate tax liability o...