Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty on the cement plant that the appellant manufactured out of the various components of this plant in the factory of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. at Kynore in Madhya Pradesh. The Commissioner finds that, by putting together these components, the appellant brought into existence a cement plant classifiable under Heading 8474.10 and proceeded to demand duty on it.2. The counsel for the appellant raises the argument that assuming that the goods that it manufactured are excisable movable goods liable to duty, the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 67/95 would be available. The Commissioner before whom this argument was raised, has denied the benefit on the ground that the appellant did not use the plant for the manufacture of any product (before its deemed removal to another person). This is the same argument that the departmental representative reiterates.3. The notification inter alia exempts capital ...

JaIn Ship Breaking Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The departmental representative agrees that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Priya Blue Industries Ltd vs CCE (appeal E/1659 and others).2. Accordingly, we have decided to take up the appeals and allow them, setting aside the impugned order....

Agile Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this stay application was called out, I find that the intimation for the hearing sent on the address given in the appeal memorandum had been returned by the postal department undelivered. The application was, therefore, taken up for disposal ex-parte. On perusal of their appeal memorandum, I find that the issue is capable of being determined. I, therefore, take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri Shaikh, Departmental Representative and after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as prayed for.2. The Asstt. Commissioner denied modvat credit of Rs.46,125.77 on the ground that the supplier's invoice was not pre-authenticated. This was in the face of the assessee's contention that for the mistake of the supplier they should not be penalised. The Commissioner(Appeals) directed them to deposit a sum of Rs.23,500/- as a pre-condition to hearing of their appeal. After extending the date of compliance on two occasions, he dismissed the appeal under Sec.35F of the...

M/S Apollo Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These six appeals are filed by Apollo Textile Mills who are a Public Sector Undertakings. On their failure to obtain the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries, they have deposited the amount confirmed gainst them and have filed six application seeking withdrawal of the appeals filed. These appeals are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.(Dictated in Court)...

M/S Bullows Paint Equipment Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing on granting the prayer of waiver of pre-deposit as made in the application.2. The appellants took modvat credit of duty paid on inputs receive against 5 invoices and one B/E. Credits were taken later than six months of the dates of issue of invoices and in the case of the gods imported, on the date on which the B/E was filed and on which the duty was paid. Show cause notice was issued for reversal of the credit so taken. Sub-rule 5 of Rule 57G prescribes a period of six months from the date of issue of invoices etc. as the period in which the credit was to be taken. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the plea was made that the B/E could not be "issued". The Dy. Commissioner did not accept the claim. In fact, he mentioned" the date of issue of B/E as the date of payment of Customs duty. Therefore, contention of the assessee that the Bill of Entry is not issued is misleading..." On his confirming t...

M/S Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants by way of application dated 13.8.2001 have requested for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the issue had been taken by them before the Joint Secretary, (Revision Application), Government of India. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

Delta Construction Systems Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Narmada Cement Company ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)2BOMLR225; 2002(1)MhLj684

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Admit. Heard forthwith. 2. Disputes having arisen between the petitioner and respondent, Reference was made to an Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has been pleased to publish the Award on 15-1-2001 along with direction dated 30-3-2001. The respondent herein, aggrieved by the said Award preferred a petition before this Court. The petition was admitted. 2A. The petitioners in the present petition who were claimants in the dispute referred to Arbitration and respondent to the petition challenging the Award have prayed that the respondents herein be ordered and decreed to deposit the various amounts as set out in the prayer clause. On the respondents depositing the said amount, the petitioners be allowed to withdraw the said amount. It is the case of the petitioners that considering the law laid down by the 'Apex Court, as the Award has not yet become enforceable, the petition filed by them is maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 'Act, 1996...

Amrut Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2002)DMC168

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. Daga, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Loney, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.2. The appellant-Amrut Sadashio Hulgunde is challenging the judgment and order dated 15.12.1995, passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Chandrapur, in Session Trial No. 36 of 1995, under which the appellant-accused has been found guilty of having committed murder of his wife Mahananda by pouring kerosene and by setting her on fire by burning stick from hearth, and so also for Subjecting her to cruelty with a view to satisfy his illegal demand of money from her parents, and thereby came to be convicted under Section 302, I.PC. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. No substantive sentence is imposed for having committed offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.3. It is the prosecution case that the appellant-accused was married to Mahananda about 8 years prior to the date of incident and that they had t...

Somani Overseas Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty on the goods imported by the applicant, and imposing penalty on it. The Commissioner holds that the benefit of notification 2.3/92 had been wrongly extended to the goods and was not available for the reason that conditions in that notification, that the modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of the exported product, had been contravened.3. The notice does not indicate any basis for its conclusion that modvat credit had been availed of. It also does not indicate any basis for invoking the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. The matter is covered by the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Plastchem Industries vs. CC 2000 (120) ELT 775....

M/S Indian Dyestuff Inds. Ltd. Vs. Comm. Cen. Excise, Vadodara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT867Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2.43 lakhs approx.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the invoices under which the applicant took modvat credit of this amount were not issued by wholesale dealers.3. On my perception that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in CCE vs Spun Tubes Ltd 1998 (103) ELT 52 waive deposit and post the appeal for hearing on 7.9.2001....