Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Balu Sambhaji Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR257

Ranjana Desai, J.1. In both these appeals, judgment and order dated 9.4.97 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1994 is under challenge. Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1997 is filed by appellant-Balu Sambhaji Shinde, who is original accused No. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 1997 is filed by appellant-Dasu Baba Shinde, who is original accused No. 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same facts, it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Hence this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to, in this judgment, as per their status in the Trial Court.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Kaprewadi, Taluka Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. They are cousins. Accused No. 1 was married to deceased-Asha, daughter of P.W. 1 Vimal Kale of Nimbgaon-Daku, Taluka Karjat. The marriage had taken place just 15 to 20 days prior to the incident in question. Village Kapr...

C.C. Ex., Mumbai-ii Vs. M/S Arje Metal Industries and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal from Revenue. The officers on a search noticed shortages in the raw material and finished goods. The shortages was explained and reconciled in particular manner by the assessee. The Commissioner accepted that explanation and dropped the demand. Hence the appeal.2. On hearing Shri Bodade, departmental representative on the appeal, I find myself unable to proceed with the case in the absence of several documents, namely, show cause notice, the reply filed to the show cause notice including the defence put forth by the assessee which was accepted by the Commissioner. Whether the defence was valid and whether the Commissioner was correct in accepting it are questions that could be answered only after perusal of the documents. The appeal has been field in a haphazard manner. The department is to file a complete paperbook. After the paperbook is filed, the Commissioner shall request the departmental representative to mention that fact before the Court.On his mentioning ...

Special Prints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the common stay order (No. 2911-17 dated 18.10.2000) passed on the stay applications inter alia of Special Prints Ltd. and Garden Silk Mills Ltd., the Tribunal in the last paragraph, permitted utilisation by the land and building of "the appellant" subject to the "assessees" giving an undertaking that they will not sell or otherwise part with the land building or any part thereof during the pendency of the appeal.2. The application by Special Prints Ltd., the assessee contends that it is the owner of only about 30% of the machinery installed in the factory. The rest of the machinery, land and building belong to Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Its counsel however points out that Garden Silk Mills Ltd. has also, in pursuance of the stay order, given an undertaking to the Commissioner not to dispose of the existing land, building, plant and machinery during the pendency of the appeals.3. It is evident that the Tribunal's order in this regard was passed in ignorance of the correct position r...

Heg Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal seeks to recover the duty that was foregone on the goods that the appellant imported, and cleared without payment of duty in terms of notification 203/92. The Commissioner finds that the appellant had availed of the modvat credit procedure in regard to the manufacture of the goods which it exported, in order to obtain the advance licence which enabled it to import the goods in question.3. The appellant had filed a reply to the show cause notice that was issued to it, (which has been acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs), in which it contended that it has availed of the amnesty scheme pronounced by the Government of India. Although this letter does not cite any evidence, the counsel for the appellant produces before us, a copy of the certificate dated 17.4.1996 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal whic...

Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT652Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufactures in its factory dry flux, copper and nickel mild wires and welding electrodes. It cleared some part of the wires and dry flux to 100% export oriented unit, which utilise them in the manufacture of electrodes most of which it exported. The appellant utilised the modvat credit that it took of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods which it cleared to a 100% export oriented unit towards payment of duty on such electrodes and wires that it manufactured in its factory and cleared for home consumption. The notice to it proposed denial of such credit.Adjudicating on the notice, the Additional Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) held that such credit was not available.2. The notice advanced two reasons for denying the credit. The first was that the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Asian Paints India Ltd v. CCE 1990(50) ELT 76 prohibited taking credit. The second was that proviso under Sub-rule (4) ...

Sharda Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We do not find it possible to accept the request for adjournment made on the ground that the officer concerned with the matter has suddenly fallen ill. On the hearing of the appeal fixed on 28.6.96, the appellant had asked for adjournment of the hearing of the appeal times.Adjournment was sought of the hearing on 2.1.2000 on the ground that its officer had resigned, and left, and its consultant at Mumbai was not available. Hearing fixed on 14.12.00 was adjourned on the ground raised by the applicant that concerned officer had fallen sick. This was the same reason advanced on 5.2.01. This is the request that is now made. We find it a little difficult to believe that the concerned officer falls sick each time the appeal is fixed by the Tribunal for hearing. We also do not understand why the appellant could not get someone else to attend the hearing. There has been sufficient time for it to arrange to do so. We have read the memorandum of appeal and relevant papers and heard the depar...

Suresh Kumar Raisoni Vs. Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The ground advanced for early hearing is that the appellant was a broker and the seizure of the gold has put him in difficulty. We do not find this sufficient ground to interfere....

Deluxe Laxmi Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case opted for benefit of Notification NO.1/93-CE declaring that they would be availing of modvat facility scrutiny of their monthly return showed that they had not availed of any modvat credit but had paid duty on concession at rate concerned officers were of the opinion that differential duty was chargeable. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 90,484/-. The assessees then filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The following judgments were cited; [1] Jay Industries vs. Collector of Central Excise [1993 (68) ELT 475 (Tribunal)]Amar Machine Tools (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise [1995 (80) ELT 595] The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the case law cited did not apply and upheld the lower order. Hence the appeal.2. We have heard both sides and have seen the cited judgments, In the Jay Industries case in identical situation, the Tribunal held for the assessees These judgment was followed in the second cited case Counsel has also ...

Datar Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application by the Revenue for early hearing of the above appeal the duty amount involved is Rs. 10.79 lakhs approximately and equal amount of penalty totaling Rs. 21.60 lakhs approximately. No satisfactory ground has been made out by the Revenue for jumping the queue. We therefore dismiss this application....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Century Textiles and Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for early hearing filed by the Revenue is allowed having regard to the amount of Revenue involved namely Rs. 2.81 crores.The appeal is fixed for hearing on 5.11.2001....