Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Manikgarh Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant was not entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on the explosives that it used to obtain lime stone from its quarries. The Assistant Commissioner has relied upon a decision of the Tribunal in Jaypee Rawa Cement v. CCE 2000 (199) ELT 552 holding that the credit would not be available on the explosives for the reason that they were not used in the manufacture in its factory. This decision is no longer good law having been overruled by the Supreme Court in its judgment in civil appeals 5340-5341/2000 filed by Jaypee Rewa Cement. The Supreme Court has held that the appellant before it was entitled to take credit.3. Applying the ratio of that judgment, I allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Alkyl Amines Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after waiving deposit.3. The respondent to this appeal received, from time to time, consignments of denatorium saccharide. It took modvat credit of the duty paid on these goods. It thereafter sent them to manufacturers of denatured alcohol for use in such manufacture. Notice issued to it proposed denial of the credit on the ground that denatured alcohol was exempted from duty and the respondent not used that product. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice.4. The assessee appealed that order. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted one of the contentions that was raised before him, that, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57F, it reversed the credit that it took of the duty paid on the chemical when it sent it out of its factory. He therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.5. In his appeal, the Commissioner does not dispu...

Rpg Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 32,923/- imposed on the applicant.2. The penalty has been imposed on the ground that the appellant did not pay duty of Rs 82,404/- on the samples of the pharmaceutical products manufactured by it, which is subject to test in its factory.The duty in question has already been paid before the issue of the show cause notice.3. The representative of the applicant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Traco Cable Com. Ltd v. CCE 2000 37) RLT 430 in support of the proposition that the samples, which were destroyed in the process of testing are not excisable goods.4. The departmental representative relies upon the order impugned in the appeal and the circular of the Board which the Commissioner (Appeals) relies upon.5. In the light of the decision of the Tribunal, and considering that the duty has already been paid, I waive deposit of the penalty and stay its recovery....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Marine Electricals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Mr. K.B. Shetty, who represented the respondent is not found to have any qualification required to appear before this Tribunal as an authorised representative. I have therefore declined to hear him.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent was not entitled to take credit prior to 22.6.1994 on a gate pass which was issued by the manufacturer on 23.12.1993, and endorsed by the consignee on some unspecified date, was in accordance with law. This is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner.3. The ground in the appeal is that by application of the provisions of notification 16/94, the credit would not be taken on such endorsed gate pass.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone by the decision of the Tribunal in Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt Ltd v. CCE 1996 (83) ELT 620. This decision had concluded, after considering notification 16/94, that credit taken prior to 30.6.1994 on a gate pass which was issued on or before 30.3.1994 but endo...

Satnarayan Steel Industries and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the above appeals involved a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed by this common order, after waiving requirement of predeposit since the issue in dispute stands settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sawan Mal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2001 (42) RLT 75 (CEGAT-L.B.)].2. The appellants are manufacturers of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel by operating a hot steel re-rolling mill. They are liable to pay duty at compounded rates in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the duty is determined depending on the Annual Capacity of Production, or such factor relevant to the annual capacity of production of the factory in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act lay down, how the annual capacity of hot re-rolling mills is...

Aqua Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Duty of Rs. 12,900/- has been demanded on the ground that ramming mass is not eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57H.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) notes the existence of conflicting views with regard to the goods under consideration - one view holding that these are capital goods, and the other that these are inputs. The fact that there are conflicting views on the issue itself, would show that the issue is debatable. I, therefore, waive deposit of the duty demanded and stay its recovery....

Bal S/O Gangadhar Modak Vs. Godavari Garments Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR296

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the punishment of dismissal from service which was preceded by holding a departmental inquiry.2. The petitioner was initially working under the State Government and on seeking voluntary retirement from the said service he joined the respondent No. 1 as Chief Accountant and Administrative Officer with effect from 2nd November, 1979. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are the subsidiaries of respondent No. 2 which is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. All these three respondents, therefore, answer the test of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.3. The petitioners, as per his service conditions came to be deputed by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3 sometimes in 1981 and he continued to be there till the end of 1983. Again, he was deputed by respondent No. 1 to the Powerloom's Division of respondent No....

Aslam Noorani Vs. M.N. Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2249; 2002BomCR(Cri)166; 2002CriLJ1102

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles himself as the brother of the detenu Yusuf alias Chikna Yusuf alias Mohmed Yusuf Salim Nurani, has impugned the order dated 30-12-2001 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996), hereinafter referred to as 'the MPDA Act'.The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 30-12-2000, was served on the detenu on 6-1-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B, respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (annexure 'B') would show that the impugned order is founded on two CRs. and two in-camera statements, viz. C.R. No. 106/2000, under Section...

A. Jayant Vs. Inspector General of Police, C.B.i.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1164

R.K. Batta, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Admit. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter was finally heard.2. In this application the applicant seeks quashing of proceedings in Special Case No. 21 of 1990 pending on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nagpur and also for awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The applicant is facing trial for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The First Information Report in this case was registered on 31-12-1983 and the Special Case No. 46 of 1985 in connection with the same was filed before the Special Judge at Greater Bombay and subsequently, on account of transfer of this case to the Special Judge, Nagpur, the case was re-numbered as Special Case No. 21 of the 1990. The applicant was working with the Oriental India Insurance Company. The allegations agai...

Satara Zilla Parishad, Satara Through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR381

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 25, 1990 of the Civil Judge, S.D., Satara in Special Civil Suit No. 55 of 1990.2. Briefly stated, the Respondent original plaintiff is a transport Contractor. The Appellant-defendant Zilla Parishad had invited tenders for the contract of transport of goods pertaining to its various Departments. The Respondent was one of the participant, who submitted his tenders - which were accepted by the Appellant. For the present, suffice it to mention that the Respondent-plaintiff carried out work of transport as agreed in the tender; and consequent thereto raised bills of the work of transport done by him during the relevant periods, for which claimed total sum of Rs. 14,54,988-80. However, the Appellant, acting on the basis of audit objections, decided to withhold the said bills submitted by the Respondent. In the circumstances, the Respondent filed subject suit against the Appellant for recovery of the amou...