Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 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 eligibility to the modvat credit of the duty paid on the coated emery paper that the appellant used in its factory. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial of the credit on the ground that it is a tool and therefore falls within the scope of exclusion clause contained in the explanation below Rule 57A. The contention of the appellant is that the Eastern Regional bench of the Tribunal in its decision in CCE vs. Arunchal Forest Products 1997 (72) ECR 448 has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE vs.Jayshree Timber Products 1993 (44) ECR 35 held that the paper is in the nature of tools.Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. CCE (appeal E/602/91), the Tribunal has distinguished the decision in Jayshree Timber. It found that the paper was used for imparting smooth finish to sheet or metal that it manufactures. It is therefore in the nature of tool. The fact that it is consumable, it gets used up...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Aia Megotteaux Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the grounds of appeal by the department it is stated that the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v.CCE, Coimbatore 1999 (108) ELT 47. Here, in this case the question is about the grant of modvat credit on EOT cranes under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The larger bench decision in Jawahar Mills has discussed the judgment of the SRB in CC v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills P. Ltd.J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. v. CCE 1998 (102) ELT 488 was also discussed in the larger bench decision. It also referred to the Patna High Court judgment in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. UOI 1998 (33) ELT 297 in the context of notification 118/75. The Patna High court held that EOT cranes were meant for production and processing of goods. The Supreme Court has approved the above judgment of the larger bench of the Tribunal. Hence it cannot be argued that the issue is not covered by the larger bench decision of the Tribunal. I therefore dismiss the appeal of the depart...

Novartis India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of insecticides falling under tariff sub-heading 3809.00.3. In February, 1999 officers of the department found certain irregularities in the maintenance of the accounts and a show cause notice was issued for wrong availment of modvat credit. The main charge is that the modvat credit availed of duty paid in respect of inputs used in the effluent treatment of M/s. Ciba Specialties and Chemicals (India) Ltd. by the appellant before me was found not to be eligible.The impugned order states that the credit which was wrongly taken of Rs. 9,74,450/- has been reversed. Penalty of Rs. 3,68,325/- has been imposed under Rule 571(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The duty amount was also equivalent to the said amount. It is contended before me that the duty has been paid prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and that the interest and 25% o...

ina Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide stay order No. C-I/1805/WZB/2001 dated 14/07/2001 pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was directed. The order was issued on 19/07/2001. Time for pre-deposit has therefore expired. There is no proof of compliance of the above stay order.2. We therefore dismiss the appeal for non-compliance in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.M. Chinnappa (Huf)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)83ITD49(Mum.)

1. This appeal of the Department has been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVIII, Mumbai, dt. 12th Nov., 1997, for the asst. yr.1996-97. The only ground of appeal taken up by the Department reads as follows : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CGT(A) erred in facts and in law in holding that the agreement regarding the property on rent to the Somaiya Chinnappa Trust is genuine and thereby in reducing the taxable gift from Rs. 6,37,11,050 to Rs. 1,31,02,113." 2. The assessee is an HUF consisting of Shri Chinnappa and his wife.The assessee was a managing director of Tata Electric Company. He purchased a flat from Tata group for Rs. 2.33 lakhs in June, 1982. In August, 1982, this flat was leased to M/s Standard Chartered Bank for a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000 and a deposit of Rs. 90 lakhs. The bank vacated the flat on 20th Sept., 1995. In the meantime, this flat was leased out to Somaiya Chinnappa Family Trust w.e.f. 19th Sept., 1995, for an amount of ...

Sharyans Resources Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)83ITD340(Mum.)

1. The only ground in this appeal filed by the assessee is directed against disallowance of the assessee's claim of depreciation on the leased assets. Facts of the case leading to this ground, briefly, are that the assessee purchased one Flameless Continuous Pusher Type Furnace on 30-8-1995 for a sum of Rs. 1,49,47,920 from M/s. Associated Engineers, Bhopal, and from the same date the said Furnace was leased to M/s. Duckfin International Ltd., Raisen. As per the lease agreement executed on 26-9-1995 the Furnace was leased to Duckfin for a period of five years on lease rentals of Rs. 9,52,000 per quarter payable in 20 instalments starting from 1-10-1995. In addition, the assessee charged lease management fee of Rs. 1,01,000. Secondly, the assessee-company purchased on 25-9-1995, 733 Compressed Gas Cylinders from Madras Machinery Trading Co., Coimbatore, at a price of Rs. 49,84,400 and from the said date these gas cylinders were leased to M/s. Miga Gases Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore. As per leas...

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Associated Cement Staff Union and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR148]; 2002(3)MhLj677

F.I. Rebello, J.1. In spite of the law laid down by the Apex Court in a Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, : (1976)IILLJ409SC , the controversy over the interpretation of Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, still seems to be in issue. Tribunals, Courts including High Courts are being called upon to decide objections raised as to who can represent the Employers in proceedings under the Act. Instead of resolving and deciding Industrial Disputes, much time is being wasted in trying to resolve the controversy, which to my mind considering the ratio decidendi in Paradip's case and for reasons given in this Judgment is no longer open. The issues in controversy may now be set out:(a) Whether a lawyer who is an office bearer of an Employers Association can represent the Employer and what is the meaning of the expression 'Officer' under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act;(b) Whether the persons other than lawyers who are not office bearers of Trade Unions or...

Adhunik Synthetic Limited Vs. Municipal Council, Jalgaon and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR532; 2002(1)BomCR115; (2002)1BOMLR140; 2002(1)MhLj27

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks a writ of Mandamus against the Municipal Council, Jalgaon, to grant exemption from payment of octroi under Rule 24(3) (4) of the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968, in respect of the import of partially oriented yarn which is exported after text rising/processing by the petitioner company, at its factory at Jalgaon.2. The petitioner is a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Kandivali (West), Mumbai and it established a factory for processing of yarn at plot No. J/49, Additional M.I.D.C. Area, Jalgaon. The said Factory is registered under the Factories Act, 1948, and commenced its production sometimes in January, 1987. There is no dispute that the factory is located within the limits of the Municipal Council, Jalgaon, it paid octroi duty under protest till September 1989 and from October 1989, it stopped payment of the same on the ...

Vishindas Bhagchand Vs. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR763; 2002(1)BomCR320; 2002(1)MhLj222

1. M/s Vishindas Bhagchand a Partnership Firm, has applied to this Court for appointment of Arbitrator in order to resolve the disputes with the respondents.2. It is the case of the petitioner-Firm that the respondents invited tenders for construction of Post Water Treatment Plant, Hydrogen Generation Plant, A. H. Plant, Switchgear Building for C. T. Electrical Groundings and other associated works at Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, Stage-III-2x500 MW-Unit 5 and 6, as per the tender No. 8 BC. The petitioner's tender was accepted by the respondents and they were issued works order dated 3-11-1988. Under the contract, the work was to be completed on 31-1-1991, but the same was required to be continued upto 1-8-1991 when it was short closed by the respondents.3. It is the case of the petitioner-Firm that though the work was short closed on 1-8-1991, the respondents had not cleared the final bill of the petitioner. By the letter dated 24-10-1996, the respondent No. 3 called upon the peti...

Aniruddhakumar Dhote Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR324; [2002(94)FLR44]; (2002)IIILLJ400Bom

R.K. Batta, J. 1. These applications for anticipatory bailare filed on account of a complaint lodged bythe Provident Fund Inspector for offence underSections 406 and 409 read with Section 34 ofI.P.C. against the present applicants andothers. The allegation in the complaint is thatduring the period January 1999 to October2000, Maharashtra Antibiotics andPharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter referredas MAPL) deducted the amount of providentfund from the salary of the employeesamounting to Rs. 54,00,851/-, but did notdeposit the same with the appropriate authorityand as such offences under Sections 406 and409 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. have beencommitted. The applicants sought anticipatorybail from the Sessions Court which wasrejected by the learned II Additional Sessions,Judge, Nagpur vide order dated July 6, 2001.These applicants have, therefore, moved thisCourt for anticipatory bail. Since all theseapplications are connected, they were heardtogether and it is proposed to dispose of ...