Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Purna Medium Project Division Vs. Y.R. Reddy and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj729

S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this Civil Revision Application, the Executive Engineer, Purna Medium Project Division (defendant No. 2) in a suit filed by the respondent No. 1, M/s Y.R. Reddy, Engineers and Builders, challenges the order dated 24-4-2001 by which the trial Court has allowed the respondent No. 1 to withdraw the suit instituted by it with liberty to file a fresh suit.2. The respondent No. 1 M/s Y.R. Reddy, Engineers and Builders, hereinafter referred to as the 'contractor', was awarded a contract for doing certain work. That contract was terminated on 16-6-2000 on the ground that the contractor had only done 23.77% of the work in 100% of time. After the contract was terminated, the Executive Engineer issued a notice dated 6-8-2000 inviting tenders for award of the said work to other contractors.3. The contractor, therefore, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 470 of 2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, and sought, inter alia, an injunction to get all the co...

Narang Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]135STC289(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This petition raises an interesting but intricate question as to whether sale of eatables or goods to foreign airlines for consumption on board during the period such aircraft is a foreign going aircraft constitute ''sale in the course of export' within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short).Factual scenario :2. The factual scenario giving rise to the present petition is as under :M/s. Narang Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the petitioners herein are the registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act', for short). They have separate business unit, being the 'Flight Kitchen', which carried on business under the name and style 'Ambassador Sky Chef located at Vile Parle, Bombay-400 099 ('Flight Kitchen', for short).3. The petitioners, with a view to have an early decision on the issue as to whether or not sales made by them from Flight Kitchen were liable to local sales tax, filed an application under ...

Jay Bhawani Metal Industries and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Jay Bhawani Metal Industries was engaged in the manufacture of copper bars, trips, wires etc and the raw material for this being copper scrap and copper bar.2. By a visit to the factory of the appellant by the officers of the department on 16.8.1994 showed excess copper scrap. There is also short of what the notice described as "semi processed copper strips and copper bars and rods." The notice issued to the appellant proposed to recovery of duty under Section 11A of the Act on wire bars, which it was alleged to have been manufactured by it out of wire bars cleared without payment of duty utilising the quantity of raw material and semi finished goods found short. Confiscation of the copper scrap was also proposed for contravention of Clauses of (b), (bb) and (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q. Adjudicating on the notice, the Additional Commissioner passed orders demanding duty, confiscating the goods found in excess, imposing penalty on the assessee and on Ramesh Kothari, its partner....

Colour Chem Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for stay of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is made on the ground that the appellant has a strong prima facie case in his favour. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the original authority demanding duty of Rs.66,70,803/- and imposing a penalty aggregating to Rs. 16,00,000/-. Hence the application for stay.2. The facts are that the appellants manufacture excisable goods falling under chapter Heading 38 of CETA 1985. They manufacture two products 'Herberts EPS 7280' and 'Herberts EPS 7260' and procure a product called Polymer MD 75 falling under chapter Heading 3824.90 from another manufacturer. They relabel this product and sell it under their brand name 'Hardner KN 75. A consumer is expected to mix this product with either of the two products mentioned above before use. The appellant, it is alleged sells this product (Hardner KN 75) at a price lower than the price at which he procured it from another manufacturer.The department's argu...

Albright Morarjee and Pandit Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC295

1. The issue involved in this appeal is very short. During the period 1982-83 the appellants was availing the benefit of set-off procedure in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 201/79/CE. The suppliers i.e. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., paid more duty in respect of the supply made during the period 06/02/82 to 02/05/83 to the extent of Rs. 1,10,011.64 and recovered the same amount from the appellant. A certificate to that effect was given by the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent on 25/04/86 on the basis of which the appellant sought permission of the proper officer to take the credit of the extra amount of duty paid by their suppliers. This request was rejected on the ground that Notification No. 201/79/CE has since been rescinded and therefore the credit cannot be extended to the appellant. The said view of the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.2. We have heard both sides duly represented by Shri Daruwala, L...

Padma Group of Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder.Verification of the stock in the appellant's factory by the officers of the department on 5.12.1988 resulted in shortage in lineal alkaline benzene and sulphuric acid and soda ash in excess, all raw materials for the manufacture of detergent powder. Some quantity of detergent powder found in packed condition was not entered in the RG1 register.Notice was issued to the appellant to recover duty on the raw materials found in short, confiscation of the detergent powder and imposing penalty. After considering the cause shown, the Additional Commissioner passed orders confirming the duty on the raw materials found short, ordering confiscation of the detergent powder in packed condition permitting it to be redeemed on payment of fine and imposing a penalty on the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental represent...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Swami Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal by the Commissioner is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty imposed under Section 11AC on the assessee from Rs 32,385/- to Rs 20,416/-.3. I have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Hindustan Wires Ltd v. CCE 2002 (148) ELT 577 which he says has been confirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.11.2002 (without giving further details) for his conclusion that penalty referred to in section 11AC, being equal to the duty is mandatory and the adjudicating authority or appellate authority had his discretion to impose, disturb or reduce it.5. The contention in the appeal is that penalty prescribed under section 11AC of the Act is the minimum penalty and the maximum is contained in Rule 173Q. The reasoning for this proposition contained in the appeal is summarised by the departmental representative as follows, (i) As h...

Twenty First Century Printers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals against the Commissioner order-in-original passed are being disposed off by this order.2. The Commissioner found that M/s. Twenty First Century Printers Ltd. (herein after referred to as TCPL) had manufactured and cleared certain excisable goods, though claimed to have been manufactured as production of and in the premises of M/s. Accura Form Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as AFPL) which was a non-existent firm without any machinery installed in their alleged premises. There was connivance between TCPL with AFPL, with an intimation to mislead the Central Excise Department and thus evade payment of Central Excise duty on such claim.3. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, it is found- a) TCPL has premises situated at 18-22 Government Industrial Estate, Masat, Silvassa where they were having certain machinery to perform on job work operations necessary to convert paperboards etc. to printed cartons. However, for other incidental processes...

Saturn Non-woven Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 11,90,140/- and penalty of equal amount on the company and penalty of Rs.11,90,000/- on the director, learned counsel, Shri J.C. Patel, submits that the demand has arisen as a result of inclusion of transportation charges from the applicants' depot to customer's premises, which is not required to be included in the assessable value, as seen from Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act. He also relies upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of VIP Industries Ltd vs. CC&CE, Aurangabad 2003 (155) ELT 8 (SC) to support his contention that even if it is cost of transportation from factory to the depot, such cost is not includable in the assessable value where a manufacturer includes equalised freight in the price of the goods and sells the goods all over the country at a uniform price (in the present case also the applicants includes equalised freight in the price of the goods and sells the goods a...

Evershine Cera Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT126Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,69,356/-and penalty of equal amount and penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the director of the company, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has upheld the duty demand and penalty confirmed against the applicants by the Additional Commissioner, on the ground of clandestine clearance of 16 consignments of ceramic glazed tiles manufactured by the applicants herein. The finding of the clandestine clearance is based upon the records recovered from the transport company, and the fact that there were invoices and bills only in respect of 15 consignments and not in respect of the remaining transport loading slips. The director of the applicant company has also admitted that they had issued invoices and bills only in respect of some of the transport loading slips and that the remaining had been cleared without payment of duty and without cover of central excise invoice.2. We have heard both si...