Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

inducto Ispat Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for determination in this appeal is the duty payable by the applicant who has an induction furnace. In terms of Sub-rule (3) of relevant rules requires the capacity, as indicated, to be determined on the basis of the invoice of the manufacturer of the furnace, if this was not available, on the basis of capacity of similar furnace and if is not possible on the basis of any other material. The certificate produced by the manufacturer of the furnace indicated its capacity to be between 3.1 and 3.5 tons. The applicant relied upon a certificate of a chartered engineer to say the capacity was 3.1 tons. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner held that the capacity was 3.5 tons.2. The Commissioner had declined to accept the certificate of the chartered engineer on the ground that it refers to actual capacity and not installed capacity. The issue are arguable. However, if the manufacturer's invoice specified a range, if not the lowest capacity, at least the avera...

Dilnawaz Kohinoory and ors. Vs. Boman Kohinoor and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR1019; 2002(3)BomCR316; 2002(1)MhLj549

1. By the present Application, the petitioners have applied in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator in order to decide the disputes that have arisen amongst the petitioners and the respondents in respect of and/or arising out the Contract dated 30th March 1993. Earlier on an application under Section 11, in respect of the same subject matter the parties were referred to an Arbitral Tribunal, which closed the arbitral proceedings under Section 25 of the Act of 1996. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners contends that even if earlier under Section 11 the parties had been referred in respect of the very subject matter to Arbitration, mere closure of proceedings under Section 25 of the Act will not preclude a fresh application under Section 11. It is contended that the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply and consequently, there is no bar for another application under Section 11. Relia...

Malanbai D/O Tukaram Satpute Vs. Deputy Director of Education and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR759; 2002(2)BomCR677

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 5-8-1999 passed by the School Tribunal Aurangabad in Appeal No. 138 of 1998.3. Few facts, relevant for the decision, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the primary school belonging to the respondent No. 3 by an order dated 8th October, 1994 on probation for 2 years commencing from 10th of October, 1994. His appointment was duly approved by the Education Officer respondent No. 2 and the same was communicated to the school under letter dated 29th January, 1995. By letter dated 22nd February, 1997 the respondent No. 2 informed the school that on account of fall in the number of students in the school, the strength of the staff of the school ought to have been reduced in accordance with the provisions of law and yet the management has failed to take appropriate action in that regard and, therefore, in future it would be the respons...

Dr. Sameer Anant Deshpande Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR510; (2002)104BOMLR878

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding admission to the M.S. (Opth.), M.S. (Paed.) and M.D. (Radiology) courses for January, 2001 batch against the seats returned from the All India Entrance Examinations 2001 quota of 25% for such admissions.2. The appellant had passed his M.B.B.S. examination in May, 1998 and scored 73 out of 100 marks in the subject of Opthalmology in the third year of the said examinations. He completed his internship training on 13th July, 1999 and was granted registration by the Maharashtra Medical Council. The Dean, Government Medical College, Aurangabad issued an advertisement on 19th August, 1999 inviting applications for admissions to the Post graduate Degree/Diploma courses in different faculties of medicine for July, 2000 batch and he had applied in response to the said advertisement with first preference for M.S. (Opth.), second preference for Diploma in Opthalmology and third preference for M.D. (Microbiology). Though he had s...

Vikas Industries Ltd., N.S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the applications seeking waiver of predeposit of duties and penalties, we find that for the reasons mentioned below, the appeals, themselves could be taken up for disposal. We do so after granting the prayers for waiver of predeposit as made in the applications.2. The 4 appeals arise out of the single order of the Commissioner now impugned before us. These appeals, are therefore, disposed of vide this common order.3. M/s. Vikas Inds. Ltd. is a partnership firm. Shri S.M. Tibrewala was the partner and Shri N.S. Tibrewala was the manager. M/s. S.M.Industries were also engaged in manufacture of iron castings. M/s.Shreeram Industries was a proprietory firm owned by Shri N.H.Ganediwala. Their affairs were managed by Shri N.S. Tibrewala. After visiting these units, after examining the documents, after recording statements of the persons and their employees, the investigating officers were of the opinion that the clearances of the individual units were required to...

Guru Kripa Marbles Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC677

1. This matter was mentioned a few days ago by counsel for the applicant. On the ground of the delay caused by the department in clearing a consignment which is still pending at the customs, and the urgency caused by delay in delivering of the goods for completion of the project, we have taken up stay application out of turn.2. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty demanded of Rs. 7.21 lakhs approx., penalty of Rs, 25 lakhs imposed on the applicant and for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal.3. The applicant imported a consignment declared to be 300 tonnes of rough marble blocks. The bill of entry that is filed to clear the consignment showed the date of shipment to be 3.3.2000. The bill of lading that the importer produced bore this date. Enquiries by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence led it to conclude that the goods were loaded on board the ship at Thessalonika in Greece on 7^th April this year. With effect from 1st April, the...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Mardia Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals ) has overruled the finding of the Asst. Commissioner in the order impugned before him that Mardia Steel Ltd., the respondent to this appeal was not entitled to take modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on electrical transformers and cables that were installed for supplying power to the furnace. Relying upon the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 347 he has concluded that credit was available. This is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner.3. The ground in the appeal is that for being eligible to consider as capital goods under Rule 57Q, as it stood at the relevant time, the goods must be used for producing or processing any goods or bringing about change in the substance for manufacture of final product.Transformer and cable do not satisfy this requirement. This is the very point that the Tribunal considered and declined to accept. The further groun...

Ratnajeet Polycon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC428

1. The appellant at the relevant time was engaged in the manufacture of such plastic articles of drums and carboys. Notification 14/92 granted exemption to such products. Entry 37 provided total exemption to duty subject to the condition that the articles are made out of the goods falling under Heading 39.01 to 39.15 of the tariff on which excise duty or additional duty of customs has been paid, and no modvat credit is taken on such duty or if articles are produced out of plastic scrap .Entry 38, which did not contain any condition provided partial exemption from duty in excess of 30% ad valorem. The appellant was availing of the benefit contained in entry 37 prior to 22.10.1993. It was not availing of modvat credit and therefore did not pay any duty on its finished goods.2. On 6.1.1993 it filed two classification lists. One list indicated that the goods manufactured out of scrap out of duty paid plastic and modvat credit had been taken. The other list indicated that modvat credit had...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Lml Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The delay of 83 days in preferring the above appeal by the Revenue is condoned as the delay has been satisfactorily explained as due to mix up of files and transfer of 4 concerned Appraisers at the relevant time.2. We now take up the stay application. We find that the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has accepted the contention of the importers that no show cause notice was issued to them before the adjudication order was passed. Further, on the merits of the merits of the matter viz. as to whether the importers sand the foreign suppliers are related persons, which was an allegation based upon the fact that there was a collaboration agreement providing for control over the foreign collaborator in areas like payment of royalty, quality control etc., he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (1995)(72) ELT 481 (S.C.). The appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal in fact has not contested the reliance of t...

Gripp Systems Ltd. and N.i. Parikh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs.69.63 lakhs and penalty on Rs. 25 lakhs by Gripp System Ltd., the manufacturer and penalty under 209A of Rs. 10 lakhs on N. 1. Parekh, its director.2. The Commissioner's order demanding duty and imposing penalty was passed subsequent to an order of the Tribunal, reported in 1996 (86) ELT 257 disposing of an appeal by the manufacturer (earlier known as Corner Stone Brands Ltd.) In the order the Tribunal considered the various elements that the Collector in the order impugned before it had held to be part of the assessable value of the television sets manufactured by it and sold to Arvind Mills. The Tribunal held that the cost of packing materials supplied to the manufacturer, cost of advertising of the television sets incurred by the buyer, and the element of excise duty forming part of Rs. 463 per picture tube which the Commissioner had ordered to be included were not includable.3. In his order impugned before us, the Commissio...