Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Shreeji Concast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT131Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant manufactures by employing an induction furnace. We are concerned in this appeal with the determination of the annual capacity of this furnace, for the purposes of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 for the year 1997-98. The appellant had initially declared five tons to be the capacity of the furnace. Later on 27.10.1997, it said that the capacity was in fact four tons. It said that it had declared earlier the capacity on the basis of the invoice issued by the manufacturer of the furnace. On verification, the capacity was lower. It had asked the manufacturer of the furnace to verify the capacity. As a result, the capacity was found to be four tons. It enclosed copy of the certificate issued by Inductotherm (India) Ltd. and by Deepak Shah, Chartered engineer, indicating the capacity within four tons.3. The Commissioner however declined to consider these documents. In the order that he passed dismissing the claim for redetermination of the capaci...

S.K. Enterprises and S.K. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1 The appeals by S.K. Enterprises, a partnership firm and by S.K.Gupta, its partner, against the order of the Commissioner imposing penalty on each of them of Rs. 5,00,000/- under rule 209A.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that, assuming everything against it, the duty involved in the gate passes relating to the goods that it is dealt with amounted to less than Rs. 19,000/-. The penalty imposed of Rs. 5,00,000/- on each of them is therefore totally misconceived. The counsel further cites the decision of the Tribunal to say that penalties cannot separately be issued on a partnership firm and a partner for same offence.3. The departmental representative reiterates the finding in the Commissioner's order. He is however not able to dispute that duty involved is around Rs. 19,000/-, nor is able to cite any decision in support of the proposition that the penalty can be separately imposed on a partner and partnership firm. Having regard to both these facts, we think it t...

The Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal involves interpretation of Rule 57R(1) which reads thus:- "(1) Credit of the specified duty paid on the capital goods (other than those cleared either to a unit in free trade zone or to a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking or to a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park) [or to a unit in Software Technology Parks) shall not be allowed if such capital goods are used exclusively for production of a final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon (other than a final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year) or is chargeable to nil rate of duty. Provided that the credit shall also not be allowed in respect of the components, spare parts and accessories of such capital goods which are used for the aforesaid purposes." 2. The appellant manufactured plastic crates. It ...

Union Quality Plastics Ltd., J.A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT371Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Union Quality Plastic Ltd. is a manufacturer of high density polyethelene woven fabrics and sacks therefrom the other textile articles. A verification of the stock of finished goods in the factory, by the officers on 1.8.1997 showed that there was a shortage of the stock of different kind of fabrics and sacks manufactured as against the stock should have been manufactured according to the RG1 register.The officers thereupon seized various documents specified in the panchnama. After investigations were completed, a notice was issued to the manufacturer and to J.A. Kathawala, the managing director, Maganbhai P. Kapadia, manager and Khojem Tayyab Ali Rangwala, the excise clerk. The notice demanded duty on the finished goods and proposed penalty on the manufacturer as well as the other three.Interest was also demanded.3. The notice was received by the appellants in February, 1999. No reply has so far been filed by any of these persons to the notices. The Commissioner, by seven letters,...

Modistone Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for customs duty on goods imported by the appellant, on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 was not available.3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. It is contended in the memorandum of appeal that on account of lock-out in the factory the notice was not received and therefore reply could not be filed. It is further contended that the modvat credit which was availed of with regard to the export products (the reason advanced by the Commissioner for the denial of notification) has been reversed. In these circumstances we think one more opportunity should be given to the appellant to present its case.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.The Commissioner shall adjudicate on the notice, in accordance with law, after considering the submissions of the appellant....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Century Enka Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for considered in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit of the duty paid on kraft paper which was converted by a job worker, on the orders of the respondent, into cartons which he returned to the respondent for packing yarn that if manufactured. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), overruling the decision of the Additional Collector, held that credit could not be denied on these goods.2. The ratio of the Madras High Court in Ponds (India) Ltd. vs. CCE 1993 (63) ELT 3, modvat credit cannot be denied on these goods, will apply to the facts before us. The fact that the paper was converted into cartons in the job worker premises on which the appeal places emphasis, in irrelevant. That was the situation in the case before the Madras High Court too. We therefore find no reason to interfere....

Baroda thermcast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By its letter dated 24.7.2001, the appellant states that it has settled the dispute under Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and produced copy of certificate issued by the competent authority showing full and final settlement of the dispute....

Shree Krishna Textiles 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 determination of the duty on the embroidery that the applicant manufactured in terms of rule 96ZI(6)(a). The compounded levy is on the basis of vertical machine. The dispute revolves round both the grounds.2. The matter appears to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal in its stay order in Amar Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2000(91)ECR 600. The departmental representative is not able to show why we should not follow that order.3. Accordingly, following that order we waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery....

B.R. Thadani Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas569(Bom)

R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The applicants have taken out the above company applicationpraying for a direction to implead the applicant as partly respondent to company applicationNo. 558 of 2000. In support of the Judge's summons, the applicant has filedan affidavit wherein it appears that the respondents have filed a claim applicationbefore the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai, seeking to recover from the OfficialLiquidator, and the applicants jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 11,89,56,606 withinterest thereon. According to the first respondent, this was the amount due andpayable by the company in liquidation to them. It appears that the Official Liquidatorby his notice of admission of proof dated 14 August, 2000, has allowed the applicant'sclaim for the sum of Rs. 3,83,42,170 and since the first respondents having alreadyreceived an amount of Rs. 4,23,88,850 out of the sale proceeds of the assets ofWester Works Engineering Limited - a balance amount of Rs. 40,46,680 is to be recoveredfrom th...

Narendrakumar Dani S/O Mangilal Dani and ors. Vs. the State of Maharas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2261; 2002(1)BomCR582; 2002BomCR(Cri)93; (2001)4BOMLR319; 2001(4)MhLj341

S.S. Parkar, J.1. These three petitions are filed by the same petitioners-accused for quashing the complaints filed against them under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and since they involve common question of law, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner - Company i.e. Prem Pharmaceuticals situated at Osan Baug, P. O. Palda. Indore (M.P.) is a manufacturer of drugs. The petitioner-Company holds valid drug licence to manufacture for sale and distribution different transfusion fluids and is permitted to manufacture 0.9% Sodium Chloride and 5% Dextrose Injection I. P. The said injections are used as intravenous injections to the persons who are unable to take food and water orally or otherwise are unable to digest food having undergone surgery or otherwise.3. In the first case the sample of the aforesaid injection was collected from St. George Hospital, in the second case from Civil Hospital, Alibaug and in the third case the sample was ...