Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT537Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On 24^th April 1994 the Central Excise officers visited the appellants' factory who manufacture goods falling under Chapter 39, and found that RG23A Part-I register was incomplete and was not written from 1.4.1994 to 24.4.1994. They conducted stock taking of the raw materials and found shortages of raw materials, packing materials and modvat inputs when compared to the balance shown in RG23A Part-I. They also found inputs/raw materials in excess of what was shown in RG23 A Part-I. It was also found that the appellants have taken modvat credit in RG23A Part-II without making the corresponding entry in the Part-I in respect of five original duty paying documents. In the impugned order, duty was demanded on the alleged shortages to the tune of Rs. 3,41,459.57. The excess raw materials were confiscated under Rule 173Q(1) and a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. A further duty of Rs. 67,141.61 was demanded on the inputs on which credit was taken in RG23A Part-II without making...

Shree Nityanand Steel Rolling Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

a) On gate passes issued prior to 01.04.1994 and endorsed after 01.04.1994 but credit availed before 30.06.1994 - Rs. 21,621/-. b) On invoices issued after 01.04.1994, endorsed after 01.04.1994 and credit availed before 30.06.1994 - Rs. 38,878/-. c) On gate passes issued prior to 01.04.1994 and endorsed thereafter and credit availed before 30.06.1994. However, credit availed after six months from the date of issue of gate pass - Rs.5,293/-. (i) The gate passes mentioned in Annexure II, all are issued prior to 31.03.1994, and credit availed before 30.06.1994 (credit availed in April and May, 1994). Hence all the endorsed GPI are valid documents as per Notification No. 16/94 (NT), relying upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. -1996 (83) ELT 620 (T) (ii) The invoices covered in Annexure -- I are concerned, all the invoices are issued in the month of April and May 1994 and credit was availed in the same month. Since vide Notification No. 7/99-CE(NT) d...

Fiat India P. Ltd. and Premier Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT82Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Identical issues arise for determination in, the above appeals arising out of 2 separate orders of the Commissioner(Appeals); hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Duty demand of Rs. 311,16,49,260/- has been confirmed on M/s. Fiat India for the period April, 1998 to June 2001 and a demand of Rs. 49,28,80,265/- on M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. for the period June, 1996 to March 1998 by adopting the cost of production of the vehicles during the period in dispute as the normal price and rejecting the actual selling price of the goods which were being sold at less than the cost of manufacture/production.3. On hearing both sides, we note that the issue in dispute has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corporation [2003(153)ELT 249 (S.C), wherein it has been held that in the absence of any allegation that the wholesale price to the buyers was for consideration other than the one at w...

Basant Lal Agarwal Vs. Lloyds Finance Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]118CompCas764(Bom); [2006]66SCL342(Bom)

D. Y. Chandrachud J.1. On December 6, 1996, the petitioner placed with the respondent an amount of Rs. 3,75,000 in deposit for a period of three years. The maturity date of the deposit was December 5, 1999, and interest was payable at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum. The terms and conditions governing the deposit provided, inter alia, in Clause (3) thus :'3. Due date is recorded upon the receipt to enable the depositor either to receive payment of the amount due or to arrange for renewal of the deposits. No further information will be given to the depositor.' Clause 5 stipulated as follows :'5. Deposit receipts must be returned duly signed by the depositors at least two weeks before the date of maturity to arrange for refund/ renewal.'2. The deposit matured on December 5, 1999. On April 16, 2002, a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent claiming repayment of the monies due and payable. There were further notic...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Santoshidevi Wd/O Radheshayam Sha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004ACJ1524; 2004(2)MhLj273

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Shri A. J. Pophaly, the learned counsel for the appellant. Shri M. S. Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 8 though served is absent.2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 27-10-1989 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Akola in M. V. Case No. 62/86 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,63,200/- together with proportionate cost and interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the accident till realisation making the appellant-insurance Company as well as respondent No. 7 owner jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation.3. Brief facts are as under:The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the claimants and the legal representatives of deceased Radheshyam Sharma, who died in an accident arising out of the use of motor-vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. MHG 7015. This motor vehicle involved in the accident is ad...

Ranjit Sinh V. Patil and ors. Vs. Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR738; 2004(3)MhLj642

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel, waives service for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This writ petition raises a short yet important question of law as to whether the number of 'nominated members' of the Managing Committee can be counted for forming a quorum of the meeting of such Committee convened for electing its officers. This is particularly so since they are specifically excluded by the provisions of Section 27(9) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') from voting at any election of the officers of such committee. Since an answer to this question does not involve any factual adjudication, a brief reference thereto would suffice.3. Respondent No. 3 (for short, 'the society') is a specified society within the meaning of Section 73-G of the Act. Elections of officers of the committee for the year 2003-04 were due and, therefore, the meeting of the directors was convened ...

Dhanesh Textile Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 7,59,39,106/- by denying the benefit of compounded levy scheme to Applicant No. 1 and imposed a penalty of amount equal to duty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act there upon and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on its Director under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The benefit of scheme under Notification 36/98 as amended by Notification 32/2001 has been denied on the ground that; the applicant company has proprietary interest in M/s. Dhanesh Industries and M/s.Ruby Silk Mills, who are primarily substantially engaged in spinning of yam or weaving or knitting of fabrics and is therefore does not fall within the meaning of "independent processor" as per Explanation II to the notification which defines independent processor as "a manufacture...

Central Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. (a) The assessees are engaged in manufacturing of Diesel Oil Engine and Centrifugal Pump Sets falling under chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.b) For manufacturing of Centrifugal Pump Sets, they are purchasing Centrifugal Pump from the open market and are coupling the same on a common base plate along with the Diesel Oil Engine manufactured within the factory. The department was of the view that the Diesel Oil Engine is exempt under Notn. No. 8/86, 4/97 and similar other notifications, when used in manufacturing of Centrifugal Pump Sets and therefore, invoked the provisions of Rule 57CC.c) In appeal to the Tribunal, it was claimed that the Diesel Oil Engine, does not get any exemption under the notifications referred and therefore, the provisions of Rule 57CC are not applicable. After considering the facts, the Tribunal allowed unconditional stay under Order No. C-II/58-60/WZB/2001 dtd. 04.01.2001.d) On this very issue, the department had raised the d...

K. Mukta Ashok Khankhoje Vs. Namdeorao Tukaram Khutaphale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR59; 2004(1)MhLj941

ORDERS. G. Mahajan, J.1. The present respondent, who is the original plaintiff, brought the civil suit No. 316/2000 before the Small Causes Court Nagpur for ejectment against the present revision petitioner, who is the original defendant, on the ground of bona fide need and non user of the premises for the purpose for which they were let out, under the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) and (n) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.2. Before the institution of suit the plaintiff/respondent had given a notice dated 06-07-2000 terminating the tenancy of the defendant/revision petitioner w.e.f. 31-08-2000. In January and April 2001 the plaintiff/respondent accepted the amounts from the defendant/revision petitioner which according to defendant/ revision petitioner were paid towards the rent and according to plaintiff/ respondent the same were towards the damages for use and occupation. The defendant/ revision petitioner filed an application before the Small Causes Court for rejection of plain...

Latoba Bandu Vs. Deputy Development Commissioner and Superintending En ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ27Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated February 28, 1996 delivered by the learned single Judge in two writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 2389 of 1989 and 2319 of 1989. Accordingly, we have heard both the appeals together and dispose these appeals by this judgment.2. Appeal No. 458 of 1996 arises out of Writ Petition No. 2319 of 1989 filed by Latoba Bandu and Appeal No. 459 of 1996 arises out of Writ Petition No. 2389 of 1989 filed by ` Sitaladin Yadav. For the sake of convenience, we intend to refer the Appellants-original Petitioners as the employees. The employees admittedly were engaged as Mazdoor on the daily rated establishment of the Respondents in the year 1973. On completion of five years of service, they were brought on regular establishment as Pump Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 205 - Rs. 355. By the order dated May 9, 1989 the employees in place of Pump Attendant were converted as Mazdoor in the pay scale of Rs. 200 - Rs. 280. It wa...