Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Chicago Penumatic India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

C. Satapathy, Member (T) 1. Heard both sides and perused the case records. These twenty-two appeals are against a common order in appeal dated 03.09.1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding fourteen orders-in-original denying the Modvat credit on various items to the appellants. Shri M.H.Patil, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that subsequent to passing the impugned order in appeal, there are a numbers of decisions of the Tribunal including those of the large Bench allowing credit on inputs and capital goods in similar cases. Lists of these decisions are in Annexure to this order.2. Both sides agree that the appellant's claim for duty credit needs to be reexamined by the original authority in the light of the afore said decisions of the Tribunal rendered subsequently. Accordingly, tne impugned orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law a...

Harsiddhi Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is taken up for final decision after waiver of pre-deposit and consent of both sides since the issue only on appeal on penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) after reducing it from the mandatory 100% imposed. There is no challenge to the charges of clandestine non duty paid removals and consequent demand of duty amounting to Rs. 7,68,123/-.2. The Advocate for appellants stressed the point that intention to clandestinely remove is not established. He referred to the following paragraph in the Annexure to the show cause notice : "..... 3. The preliminary scrutiny of the seized documents revealed that the assessee had cleared finished goods viz. M.S. pipes and scrap under the cover of delivery challans serially numbered from Sr. No. 401 to 460. The hooking order forms were used as delivery challans for effecting the clearances. However, there were no central excise invoice for the said clearance. On perusal of their RG-1 register it was noticed that the...

Pure Helium (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT122Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Having examined the records and heard both sides, we are of the considered view that the applicants have a strong prima-facie case.Accordingly, we allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. The Id.Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order not on merits but on the sole ground of non compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. He had by an earlier interim order directed the party to pre-deposit Rs. 5 lakhs each towards duly and penalty under Section 35F ibid. The deposits were not made. Consequently, appeal of the party was dismissed on the aforesaid ground.3. The effect of the impugned order was to affirm a demand under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 confirmed by the Original Authority. The case put forward by the Id.Counsel for the appellants today before us is that the demand under Rule 57CC is not a demand of duty and, therefore, Section 35F cannot be applied to this case. The Id.counsel has also relied upon t...

Bhajandas Gorekh Bhuirkar Vs. the District Election Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR749; 2004(1)BomCR9; 2004(1)MhLj923

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By order dated 28th March, this Court issued notice to the respondents that the matter would be heard and finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petition was accordingly heard finally on 6th October 2003 and the judgment was reserved which we pronounce today.2. The petitioners are borrower members of the Respondent No. 3 which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1916 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent No. 3 is a Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society. The respondent No. 1 is the Election Officer attached to the office of District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Solapur. The respondent Nos. 4 to 26 are the candidates to the election of the managing committee (for short 'the Committee') of the respondent No. 3 Society. Under the Bye laws of the respondent No. 3 Society the Committee consists of 17 members out of which 10 members are elected from the borrower members and one members is to b...

Seahorse Shipping and Ship-management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(163)ELT145(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the penalty levied upon them under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the alleged short landing of the goods. In the orders impugned in the petition, it is stated that action is taken against the petitioners solely based on the outturn report of the B.P.T. In the affidavit in reply, it is admitted by the respondents that as per the tally sheet of the B.P.T. at the time of discharge of the containers from the vessel, the seals of the containers were intact. If the seals put on the containers were intact, then for any shortage of goods stuffed inside the containers by the foreign suppliers, the shipping agents cannot be made liable. Whether the penalty can be levied upon the shipping agents under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, solely based on the outturn report of the B.P.T., has been considered by this Court in the case of Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Col-lector of Customs Manifest Clearance Department...

C. Natvarlal and Co. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Acc

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(163)ELT146(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The petitioners had imported silk sutures and claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 208/81, dated 22-9-1981. It is admitted by Counsel on both sides that during the pendency of the petition. Similar consignment imported by the petitioners has been adjudicated upon by the Collector of Customs and by order dated 10-4-1995, the Collector of Customs has held that the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 208/81 is available to the imported silk sutures. Counsel for the Revenue states that the aforesaid order of the Collector of Customs, dated 10-4-1995, has been accepted by the Revenue. In this view of the matter, the rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer Clause (a), however, there shall be no order as to costs....

Haresh Chinnubhai Shah Vs. Rajesh Prabhakar Jhaveri and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR654; 2004(1)ARBLR536(Bom); 2004(2)BomCR527; 2004(1)MhLj1109

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Mr. Bookwalla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents and their Advocate are absent when called.2. In this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') the petitioner takes exception to the award dated 1st February 2002 made by Shri Bhavin Dave and Mr. Niren Mehta, two joint arbitrators. Briefly states, the facts are as under:3. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are cousins. The respondent No. 2 is the mother of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 herein had filed a suit bearing suit No. 3659/90 against Sadguna Chimanbhai Shah (mother of the petitioner) and Others on the Original Side of this Court. Consent terms were filed by the parties in the said suit which inter alia provide that the nominee directors of Shirom Limited will arbitrate any future disputes if they arise between the parties. By an order dated 23rd September 1999, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the consent terms. It appears t...

Ganesh Bhagwan Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC445

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard Mr. Agandsurve and Mr. Saste at length in context with the judgment and order, which has been challenged by this appeal and evidence, which has been adduced by the prosecution for proving the guilt of the appellant.2. The appellant assails the order of conviction and sentence passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur, in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2000, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.3. The prosecution case,...

Priyaswami Alagappa Arundudhi Vs. Mahesrajahan Rafiq Ahmed Khan and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC718; 2004ACJ524

A.P. Shah, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.B. Kotak appearing for the petitioner. Respondents are absent despite notice.2. The petitioner was injured in motor accident on 26.5.2000. The accident took place at about 6.30 p.m. at Senapati Bapat Marg, Mahim, Mumbai when a truck owned by the respondent No. 1 knocked down the petitioner. The petitioner was badly injured and he was treated at K.E.M. Hospital. The hospital authority has issued certificate to the effect that the petitioner has suffered amputation of forefoot and 25 per cent permanent disability.3. That the petitioner suffered partial disability as a result of the accident was not seriously disputed before the Tribunal. What is in issue is the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the alcoholism. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor and that the fact that he himself dashed against the motor vehicle cannot be ruled out. In other words, according to the Tribunal the accident had oc...

Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC147Tri(Mum.)bai

2. A synopsis of the functioning of various items involved in the dispute was presented during the hearing by the learned consultant. On going through the functional role of the disputed items, it is noticed that, each of them is either a part of Programmable Logic Controller, which is an automation system installed in the factory or are parts, or sub assemblies of connected equipments/machinery. The D.R. opposed the claim for credit on Industrial Vacuum Cleaner, stating that the same is not used "in or in relation for manufacture". However, I note that in an automation plant, providing dust free environment for trouble free operation of the machinery is very important and therefore the Industrial Vacuum Cleaner is an essential equipments for the production process, and hence permissible for grating credit.3. Accordingly all the appeals succeed and the same are allowed.Impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are consequently set aside....