Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Shankar M. Pawar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Anusayabai Alias Ambabai W/O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR542; 2002(2)BomCR184

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The dispute in the petition relates to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 105/3 now Gat No. 163 situated in the village Nandurkheda, taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. The land in question belongs to Govind Vinayak Matkari, Shankar Ramkrishna Dahale and Nilkanth s/o Ramchandra Dahale. Since 1951 the land was cultivated by one Mukund Pawar as the tenant thereof on payment of annual rent of Rs. 28/-. Mukund Pawar expired in the year, 1956 leaving behind him five sons namely, Narayan, Pandu, Dattu, Chintaman and Shankar (petitioner herein) as his heirs and consequently, all the sons being major in age at the time of the death of Mukund, inherited the tenancy rights in the said land in equal shares. After the death of Mukund, one Sayabai w/o Bhaurao Awahane, mother of the respondents herein purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 29th October, 1956 and on the same day, she was p...

Gadge Maharaj Mission and anr. Vs. Wasudeo Ramji Patil and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR371

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 26th November, 1999 passed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 55/1996 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to the Tribunal to entertain the appeal at the instance of the respondent No. 1 in view of the fact that the institution in which the respondent No. 1 was employed is not a school within the meaning of the said expression under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act').3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner No. 1 is an Educational Institution which runs an Ashram Shala by name Shri Gadge Maharaj Adivasi Post Basic Ashram Shala in the village Sitakhandi, Taluka Bhokar, District Nanded. The respondent No. 1 was in employment of the petitioners as teacher in the said school. By notice dated 14th March, 1996 the se...

M/S Sang Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue for decision in this case is whether an assessee opting out of the Modvat Scheme for utilising the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86 CE is required to reverse the credit on inputs lying in stock as well as inputs contained in final products in stock on the date of opting out.2. We have heard the Departmental Representative and perused the records. We find that in the case of M.S.G.Industries vs CCE, Belgaum [1996(65)ECR 303], the Tribunal had held that the credits on in-stock inputs as well as those contained in the in-stock final products on the date of opting out are not required to be reversed when the assessee opting out of Modvat Scheme for the purpose of availing the SSI Notification benefit. Following the ratio of the above judgment, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....

M/S Arihant Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT625Tri(Mum.)bai

1. At the outset, Shri Mondal seeks time to argue to Modification application on the ground that the balance sheet of the applicant company is not yet ready. We are not inclined to grant adjournment and proceed to hear the applicant.2. By the stay order No. C.I/1898/WZB/2001 dated 22.6.2001 pre-deposit of Rs.15 lakhs towards duty within eight weeks was directed and compliance was to be reported today. The applicant states that although their case does not comes within the four corners of the Amnesty Scheme, the pre-deposit requirement should be waived in as much as reversal of modvat credit amounts to non-availment of the same.However, the judgment of the Supreme Court now cited was not cited at the time of hearing of the stay application and the Bench passed by stay order on the basis of the submissions made by both the sides.dismissing the modification application, we extend the time for pre-deposit by four weeks from today. Compliance to be reported on 16.10.2001....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The department seeks condonation of delay of 10 days in filing of the above appeal. The reason given is that there was delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional office/Range Office and as a result delayed the processing of the file.Although, normally, the Bench may not have declined to condone the delay considering the period thereof, in the present case, we find that only copies of the impugned order and the Order-in-Original have been filed and the Commissioner's office as well as the Divisional office are situated in the same Division viz, Belapur.2. On an earlier occasion, the delay on the same ground has not been condoned as seen from the orders in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. VII vs. M/s. Neelikon Food Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. (Appeals No. E/1177/01-Mum andCCE, Mumbai. VII vs. M/s.Mahalaxmi Seamless Ltd. (Appeal No. E/1333/2001-Mum). Following the ratio of the above orders on COD applications and appeals, we reje...

Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of duty of Rs. 20.63 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1.7 lakhs totally payable, applicant has deposited Rs. 15.20 lakhs.2. Applicant uses coolant for rolling aluminium rods in its factory, the duty paid of which it takes as credit under Rule 57Q. After the coolant oil becomes contaminated and unusable, it clears it from it factory to a job worker. The job worker purifies the oil, rendering it fit for use again, sends it after payment of duty to the applicant. The applicant takes credit of the duty paid and uses the oil once again.This process is repeated many times. The department holds that credit could not be taken in these considerations.3. The objection is that the procedure under Rule 57S is to followed.This clearance is prima facie not clearance under that rule but case of straight removal of products after their use and without being subjected to any manufacture by the applicant. In view of this, and considering the amount already paid, we waive deposit of the remaining duty an...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent herein are engaged in the manufacture of P.S.C. Pipes and articles of cement falling under Chapter 68.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Verification of records by the Central Excise officers showed that the assessee had not included the inspection charges in the assessable value of the pipes. It was also found that inspection charges were paid to M/s. Engineers India Ltd by M/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co.Ltd. and subsequently the same were reimbursed to them by M/s. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board who were the buyers of the pipes manufactured by the respondents. A show cause notice proposing recovery of duty of approximately Rs.80,000/- as a result of non inclusion of inspection charges in the assessable value, was issued. The Commissioner adjudicated the notice and dropped the demand on the ground that the inspection charges already included in the assessable value before the goods attained the stage of marketability. Hence, this appeal by...

Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant manufactures certain types of machinery. Among these are diary machinery and parts thereof on which the rate of duty is nil, and some other machinery which it cleared payment of duty to the Indian Navy in terms of an exemption notification. The applicant was therefore required in terms of Rule 57CC to pay an amount equal to 8% of the sale price of such goods. The applicant included in the price of the diary machinery and the goods sold to the Navy this 8%. The invoice included as an element of price an amount of "8% modvat reversal under 57CC".2. This invited a notice from the department proposing to recover this amount in terms of Section 11D of the Act. The notice was confirmed by the Commissioner. The applicant is therefore required to deposit a sum of Rs. 22.90 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in order to pursue the appeal that it has filed.3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the amount to be deposited in 57CC is not in the nature of duty and t...

Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., R.R. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT594Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Saheli Synthetics (Appeal C/398/01) is a 100% export oriented unit at Surat. It is engaged in printing and dyeing of fabrics which it imports, predominantly for the purpose of export. It also sells part of the production in the domestic tariff area. The notice issued to it demanded duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that it had removed quantities of such processed fabrics to the domestic tariff area without payment of duty and on the further ground that it had short paid customs on some other quantities which it sold.Penalty under Section 112 of the Act was proposed on it and on R.R.Agarwal, its director for its contravention. Penalty under Section 112 was also proposed on Gajanand Fabrics, Kamdhenu Textiles and Shalimar Fabrics, for having purchased such goods.2. The contention of the common counsel for the appellants is that no duty under the Customs Act, 1962 could be demanded on these goods which the appellant manufactures in its factory in India and s...

Rajesh Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Duty of Rs. 10.37 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 98,245 are payable by the assessee. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the ground that the appellant did not pay within the time permitted by law the duty demanded on the basis of its capacity determined in accordance with the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.3. The contention of the manufacturer in the stay application is that the Commissioner has erred in including in the duty demand one of its two stenters for the period from 9.2.99 to 26.3.99. In the order, the Commissioner has noted that while the stenter was sealed and not in operation prior to 9.2.99, it was unsealed on 9.2.99 and dismantled from 26.3.99. In the absence of anything to show that the stenter was not functioning during this period, he has taken this stenter into consideration in determining the capacity.4. While the applicant contends that this is erroneous and the stender did not function during this p...