Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

M/S Ujagar Prints 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 disposal on granting the prayer for waiver of predeposit.2. The appellants were operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Vide Order No.V.T.Ch.54 (30)26/98 dt. 11.10.99, their Annual Production Capacity and the quantum of compounded duty were determined. In this determination the rail length of galleries had also been included.Against that order an appeal was filed. The CEGAT Vide Order No.C-I/2080-81/WZB/2000 dt. 2.6.2000 allowed the appeal by way of remand.This was on the ground that the expert opinion needed verification. The law was subsequently laid down that the rail length of galleries was not to be taken into account for determining the number of chambers.[Larger Bench decision int eh case of [Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise] 2001 (127) ELT 679 (Tri.-LB)].3. In the meanwhile on 9.9.99 the asse...

United Phosphorous Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC739

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit under rule 57Q of various items that the appellant uses in its factory for the purpose of manufacturer of caustic soda and chlorine. The Commissioner passed an order impugned in this appeal on adjudication of two notices that proposed to deny the credit.2. The goods specified in the show cause notice dated 10.5.95 are either material handling equipment, and electrical machinery or apparatus. Credit has been denied on the ground that they did not conform to the definition of "capital goods" under rule 57Q as being necessary for producing or processing any goods or bringing about a change in any substance for manufacture of final product. The eligibility to credit under this rule of such goods which did not directly produce or process any goods or bring about change in any substance for manufacture of finished product has been confirmed by the larger each of the Tribunal in its decision in Jawahar Mills...

The Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three stay applications are for early hearing in pursuance of the three appeals filed against the single order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In this order the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification of certain textile fabrics under sub-heading 5909.00 of Central Excise Tariff, as against the assessees claim of sub-heading 5205.00. In doing so he had relied upon the Tribunal's order reproduced in [1993 (49) ECR 147 (Tribunal)]. This decision of the Tribunal was overruled by the Larger Bench in their judgement in the case of Jyoti Overseas Limited Vs. CCE [2001 (44) RLT 37]. Reliance has been placed in the appeals and in the applications on this order. It is claimed that even in the face of being informed of the supersession of this order, the concerned authorities are insisting on enforcing the demand of Rs.5, 35,10,835/-. Hence the applications.2. On perusal of the applications we are satisfied that a prima facie case exists for hearing out of turn. There would be n...

Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are not present. Since the legal aspects of the appeal are settled, we take up this appeal for disposal on merits after hearing Shri R.K. Pardesi for the Revenue.2. Ayurvedic Medicaments were eligible for clearance at Nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 9/93 CE. With effect from 1.3.94 such goods attracted duty at the rate of 10% Adv. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty but later filed refund claim on the ground that no duty was leviable on pre-budget stock. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the law as given in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (44) ELT 598 (SC)] upheld the denial of the refund claim. Hence the appeal.3. In their appeal memorandum appellant have relied upon the later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. [1996 (83) ELT 3 (SC)]. The said judgment grants exemption to pre-budget stock where no duty was earlier levia...

M/S Siddhant Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay applications the appeal was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for.2. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed that differential duty of Rs. 1, 15,839/- and imposed equal amount of penalty on the ground that the length of galleries having been added to the chambers, the production capacity had increased resulting in the short levy of duty. There was a delay of filing of an appeal before the Commissioner of about 35 days.The ground for condonation was that the paper had been misplaced. The Commissioner did not accept this ground and dismissed the appeal on limitation. Hence the present appeal.3. Shri Mayur Shroff relies upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jaya Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Government of India [1997 (90) ELT 19 (S.C.)] where the Tribunal's order not condoning the delay of about 38 days was reversed. On the ground that the case was strong on merits.The technical issue is this case is squarely covered by the Lar...

Sanjay Vasantrao Hage, Edbpm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ67CAT

1. This is an application made by Shri Sanjay Vasantrao Hage, seeking the relief from this Tribunal to quash the impugned order dated 2.5.1997 (A. 2) through which it is stated that he was appointed as B.P.M. through mistake and given to understand that his services will be terminated at the end of expiry of one month from the date of receipt of this (impugned) order. The Applicant also seeks all consequential benefits, including costs.2. The facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Post Offices, Buldana had approved applicant's appointment as EDBPM (A. 3 Page 8).Applicant states that he was regularly appointed and hence the termination order is illegal. He had filed a suit in the Civil Court, Khamgaon, due to ignorance, soon after this Order, but the Court dismissed the suit on 5.6.1997 for want of jurisdiction. He had thereafter approached this Tribunal, a few days later (i.e. on 12.6.1997).3. The Applicant has given details of the process of his selection, and states that 1...

Pradnya D/O Nagnath Ilayatnagarkar (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State of Maharas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR382

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these three petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.3. An advertisement came to be published on 22nd June, 2001 inviting applications in prescribed forms from the eligible candidates for the postgraduate degree and diploma courses in relation to vacant seats including those from All India Quota, of January, 2001 term. The details of such vacant seats were given in the appendix attached to the said advertisement. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners and the private respondents herein applied for admission to the seats of their choice. It is the case of all the petitioners that inspite they being eligible and meritorious candidates for the vacant seats of their choice, they have lost their chance of being selected in those seats pursuant to the impu...

Ashish Haribhau Sarode Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR858; 2002(5)BomCR419

V.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Mr. Raghuwanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Kadam, learned A.G.P. for the respondent No. 1 and Miss. Surekha Mahajan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Mr. Raghuwanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the respondent No. 3. Leave to delete respondent No. 3 granted.2. Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner appeared for XII standard Examination held by the respondent No. 2 in February, 2001. On 24-2-2001 he was appearing for examination paper in Hindi subject. At that time the examination hall was searched by the Squad and the Education Officer found some papers. It is alleged that those papers were found with the petitioner, and therefore, the Education Officer prepared necessary documents and submitted the matter to the respondent No. 1 Board. The Enquiry Officer was appointed. Before him, petitioner filed his say and he contended that he was ...

M/S Amar Deo Plastic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufactured goods on job work basis. The price list filed was on the basis of raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturer plus the job charges. Show cause notice was issued alleging that the wholesale price charged by the principal manufacturer should be the basis of assessment of the product made by the job worker. The assessee relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Ujjagar Prints [1988 (38) ELT 535 as also 39 ELT 493 and judgments of the Tribunal in like cases. The Asstt.Collector did not discuss the relevance of the cited case laws but held that the relationship between the principal manufacturer and the job worker would not be on the principal to principal basis. He finalised the price as per the show cause notice and confirmed the demand for differential duty. The assessee then filed an appeal. Before the Commissioner(Appeals), the earlier cited case laws were again cited and also subsequent case laws. The Commissioner observed that the...

M/S K. Uttamlal Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it is appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be disposed of. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the sums confirmed and imposed as prayed for.2. The Commissioner in the impugned order imposed penalty of Rs. 28,000/- and also confirmed demand of Rs. 5,49,772/-. The ground for this action was that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Notification No. 203/92 Cus in as much as in the manufacture of export exports, the input stage credit has been availed of. In doing so, the Commissioner observed that the appellant had not filed any reply nor had they appeared for personal hearing.3. On behalf of the appellants, it is claimed that the notice for hearing on 12.10.2000 had not been received by the appellants at all and that is why the appellants could not state their case before the Commissioner. It is further claimed that the show cause notice did not substantiate the ground...