Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Qss Investors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Allied Fibres Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas587(Bom)

Kochar, J. 1. The petitioners have prayed for an order of winding up of the respondent-company under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), alleging failure on the part of the company to repay its debt to the tune of Rs. 6,06,24,539.15. It is the case of the petitioners that it had invested the aforesaid amount in the respondent-company by way of share application money. In a nutshell, the loan advanced by the petitioners to the respondent-company was treated as share application money in the books of account till a proper and legal share subscription agreement was entered into for allotment of shares by the company to the petitioners. Till such time, the said money remained as an advance with the company. It is alleged by the petitioners that in spite of repeated requests the company failed and neglected to enter into a share subscription agreement for allotment of shares to the petitioners. It called upon the respondent-company to return the said amount wit...

Gunwant Mahadeorao Deshmukh Vs. Bapurao S/O Krishnarao Shinde and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR253; 2002(3)BomCR286

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and respondents.2. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff. The substantial question of law that was formulated by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal is as follows:- 'Whether the finding of fact, that there was no legal necessity for the alienation can be accepted in second appeal, when the judgment of the first Appellate Court shows that it has been a wrong view of the burden of proof.'3. The following facts have given rise to the litigation in which the parties have come to the Court in this second appeal. The plaintiff filed regular civil suit for possession and also mesne profits. The suit was filed in respect of field Survey No. 13/1 admeasuring 6 acres 31 gunthas of village Gawandi. This field was originally owned by one Mahadeorao who died in the year 1923 without any issue. Indirabai was widow of the said Mahadeorao, she became sole successor and owner of the estate. Mahadeorao left behin...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the appellate authority has granted modvat credit after looking into invoices on which serial number has been typed and the invoices were issued by the manufacturers themselves. The adjudicating authority had denied the modvat credit on the ground that it was not printed. In paragraph 5 of the order the appellate authority has stated that the serial number has been typed and there was no dispute that duty has not been paid on the inputs. It has been specifically held by the appellate authority that the invoice has been issued in terms of Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules. The so called technical error is only a minor one.2. I have considered the grounds raised by the department. They have relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M.A. Prestressed Works v. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 741 which held that invoice without printed serial number is not a valid document in terms of Rule 57GG. The said judgment does not discuss about the typed number given in the invoice...

BipIn Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for early hearing of this appeal is allowed. Since the issue in dispute has been settled by the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors, Bhilwara Vs.CCE, Jaipur 2001 (127) ELT 679 we take up the appeal itself for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. The issue to be decided is as to whether the length of galleries to be included in fixing the annual capacity of the production of textile processors under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor's Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 framed in terms of Section 3(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We not that the earlier conflicting views of the Tribunal have been considered by the larger bench int eh cited decision and the view that emerge from the larger bench decision is that the gallery will not come with the purview of "any other equipment" as contemplated by Explanation (1) to the Rule.3. Following the ratio of the above decision, we hold that the length of...

Fgp Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of serial No. 10 of the table annexed to Notification 52/86 is available to resin bonded glass wool manufactured by the appellants herein. The benefit of the notification has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that the fabrics are impregnated glass fabrics and hence excluded from the benefit of the Notification as per serial No. 10 itself.2. We find on hearing both sides that the very same issue, on benefit of notification in terms of serial No. 10, in assessees own case, was considered by the Tribunal by the final order No. 414/2001-B dated 07/08/2001 in the appeal filed by the Revenue where the Commissioner (Appeals) had extended the benefit of the notification to the assessee and the bench has upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The period covered by the earlier appeal is subsequent to the period covered ...

Kiran Fashion, Krishan Impex, Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These four applications relate to the four appeals filed against a common order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. These four applications are therefore taken up together for disposal.2. M/s. Kiran Fashions filed drawback shipping bill for export of men's trousers valued at US $ 8.80 CIF per trousers. These trousers were fabricated by Krishan Impex who had purchased the fabrics from M/s.Ankita Textiles. Shri A.R. Saboo was the proprietor of Krishan Impex and Power of Attorney holder of Kiran Fashions. An enquiry was conducted to verify the declarations as to the export value. It was revealed that Ankita Textiles had sold the cloth for Rs. 90/- per meter. On behalf of Krishan Impex it was claimed that the cost of processing was Rs. 109/-. At a later stage Shri Saboo claimed that the cost of conversion was RS. 103.45. The cost of construction filed with the shipping bill had shown the total cost to be Rs. 372/- where the other charges shown were Rs. 184.50. On investigations ...

Century Enka Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved is that the material equipment purchased by the assessee is entitled for modvat credit under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The issue is settled in favour of the assessee by the large bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills v. CCE, Coimbatore 1999 (108) ELT 47. The department took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court which by its judgment reported in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills 2001 (132) has affirmed the judgment o the Tribunal. Hence I allow the appeal of the assessee before me and hold that they are entitled to modvat credit on forklift truck, and order consequential benefit, setting aside the impugned order....

Rumika Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a sum of Rs. 4,45,291/- is entitled to be granted as modvat credit or not.2. The credit was taken in this case between November and December, 1992 and notice was issued on 16.11.1994. At the time of taking credit the seller's invoice as obtained by the assessee has been defaced which bears the signature of the jurisdictional Superintendent. The question is whether it is barred by limitation or not.3. The time limit of six months and five years as envisaged under Rule 57I(i)(ii) was introduced some time on 6.10.1988. The argument of the DR, namely the time limit was not provided under Modvat Rules is mis-placed. I therefore set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner denying the modvat credit of Rs. 4,45,291/-, and also imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/-....

Hindustan Transmission Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. I have taken up the appeal for disposal, despite the absence of the advocate for the appellant.2. In this case, the assessee has taken the returned goods s defective and manufactured the final product, using the returned goods as inputs.I have before me a two-member decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABS Industries Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (112) ELT 854 wherein under similar circumstances the modvat credit has been granted.In fact in the said decision Rules 57A, 17311, 173L and 173U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were discussed. Hence following the same I allow the appeal of the assessee.3. Appeal stands allowed. In view of the same, stay petition also stands disposed of....

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Kaygee Foams Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein manufacture motor vehicle parts such as two stroke steering wheels for different vehicles, horn cover, horn pads, etc. The Revenue came to the conclusion that these goods have been affixed with the brand name of the buyers namely Mahindra & Mahindra and Premier Automobiles Ltd., and hence alleged that the benefit of SSI exemption under Notifications 175/86-CE dated 01/03/1986 and 1/93 had been wrongly claimed by the respondents. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings holding that although the monogram PAL and M&M were not affixed on the goods by themselves, but the monograms affixed on the horn pads were supplied along with the steering wheels, horn pads and horn covers and therefore it amounted to affixation, but Since the goods were not traded in the market but were OE equipment the exclusion in terms of SSI notification would not be attracted against the respondents. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. There is no dispute that the monog...