Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

M/S AshwIn Steel Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Despite issue of notice for legible copy of the order, the applicant has again sent illegible copy . The claim hat this is w hat it received from the department is evidently not correct since what has been submitted is a photocopy.2. The appeal is therefore dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedural) Rules....

Whirlwind Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT120Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the charges that the appellant recovered from its customers for erections and commissioning of the centrifugal blower, axial fan and ventilation and exhaust systems and their parts that the appellant manufactured and supplied must form part of the assessable value of these goods.2. It was the contention of the manufacture before the Commissioner that these activities took place subsequent to the manufacture of the excisable gods and the charges collected for them must not form part of the assessable value. The Commissioner has not accepted this argument on the ground that manufacture, as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product and hence these activities were not subsequent to manufacture and these charges would form part of the assessable value. This is the arguments that the departmental representative reiterates.3. We find ...

Hari Leela Process House, Ravi M. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 7,07,800/- has been demanded from Hari Leela Process House on whom penalty of the same amount has been imposed. Penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each have been imposed on Ravi Bhalotia and Rajesh Arora, directors of the manufacturer.2. The entire duty has been deposited by the manufacturer. We do not think that deposit of penalty is required. In view of this, we take up the appeal itself, set side the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals before him for failure to deposit the entire amount and penalty by each of these three person allow the appeals. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing of the appeals without requiring any further deposit....

Shaikh Babbu S/O Shaikh Suleman Vs. Rashida W/O Shaikh Babbu and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)279; (2002)3BOMLR818; 2002(2)MhLj495

R.K. Batta, J.1. The respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as original applicant) had filed an application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was dismissed by the J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli vide judgment dated 29th January, 1991. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the present applicant (hereinafter referred to as original non-applicant) had tried to fetch the original applicant; no ill-treatment by way of beating by the original non-applicant and his first wife is proved by the original applicant, who is the second wife, for want of supporting evidence; that the original applicant was not entitled to claim maintenance allowance against her husband during lifetime of 1st wife; that in accordance with section 214 of Chapter 14 of the Mohammedan Law, marriage being a contract, the provisions of maintenance are left to a written agreement of maintenance and besides that no neglect or refusal has been proved by the original applicant on the...

Cosmo Films Ltd. Vs. Sunil Vasudeorao Deshmukh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)MhLj709

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) No. 26/2000.3. The complaint came to be filed by the respondent herein in the Industrial Court against the petitioner contending that the petitioners are engaged in unfair labour practice by transferring the respondent from Chikalthana plant to Bombay Head Office under the transfer order dated 2-3-2000 received by the respondenton 5-3-2000. According to the respondent, the transfer order amounts to the petitioner being involved in unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as the 'said Act'). It is the contention of the respondent that the action of transfer is mala fide and has been taken only to harass the respondent to...

Raymond Calitri Denim Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the stay application come up for hearing, I find most mere is a request for adjournment. However, the issue being small, I proceed to dispose of the appeal itself on granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty as prayed for in the stay application.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was a delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal before him. He mentioned that in two occasions, notices were issued asking the appellants why the appeal should not be dismissed on this ground. No reply being received, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal before him on the point of limitation.In the appeal memorandum the claim made is that their Assistant filed the appeal late but the assessees were under the impression that the appeal was filed in time. The second claim made is that notices never reached the assessee and, therefore, they could not seek any condonation.3. I find that the delay is marginal and such small delay cannot be attributed to any malafide on ...

Rajesh Poddar and Loha Ispat P. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the appeal was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.2. The appellant are registered dealers. They were delivering a consignment of locally purchased scrap to a manufacture. That scrap was intercepted. The goods were covered under a delivery challan.Subsequently, however, invoice under Rule 57GG was made. Still subsequently, the employee and the District both admitted that the invoice was wrongly made. Physical check of the good in the dealer's premises showed substantial shortage. After issue of show cause notice, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai passed ex-parte order confiscating the scrap with the truck and releasing them on payment of fines. He restrained the dealer from passing any modvat credit on the scrap. He directed reversal of modvat credit on the goods found short in stock. He imposed penalties under Rule 57I(4) on the dealer and on the Director under Rule 209A of the Central ...

Silver Laminates P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex., Ahmedabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant absent and unrepresented. There is no compliance of the Tribunal's stay order....

Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT163Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufactures what is popularly known as "STD/PCO equipment" that is utilised by operators of the telephone booths for the purpose of displaying, recording and calculating charges on telephone calls for the benefit of persons who utilise the booths to make calls. For the operation of this apparatus, appellant inscribes on erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM for short) data without which the apparatus cannot perform these functions. The appellant does not itself manufacture the EPROMs but purchases them from its dealers.The notice issued to it proposes that the activity that the appellant undertook resulted in emergence of goods classifiable under heading 8517.00 of the tariff. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has confirmed the proposal in the notice demanding duty on the goods. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the appellant is that the goods could not be classifiable under heading 85.17. That head...

Lloyds Metals and Engineers 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 the eligibility to modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on hot rolled steel plates that the appellant used in constructing the foundation for the day bins that was installed in the factory. These day bins are storage bins in which the appellant stores its raw material, and other goods such as cold rolled steel as well as finished goods.2. The reasons that the Commissioner advanced for denying the credit is that they become part of immovable property, and such immovable property therefore disqualifies for being considered as capital goods.United Phosphorous Ltd. v. CCE (appeal E/2356/96), we, after discussing the relevant provisions of the rule and taking note of the decision in Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (113) ELT 558, we had not found it possible to uphold the denial of the credit of the duty paid on capital goods solely for the reason that, in the course of their use, they become permanently attached to the e...