Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Epc Irrigation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondents are manufacturer of HDPE/LDPE pipe, etc. They availed modvat credit. They cleared waste and scrap of the pipes for granulation under Rule 57F(3) to the job workers. The lower authority confirmed the demands under Rule 57F(5) on such clearances.Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the confirmation orders finding that scraps i.e., off-cuts of rejected pipes are of single thermoplastic material and are to be treated as removal of the primary form on inputs itself since they were not classified as scrap/waste under 3915.00 to allow duty under Rule 57F(4). Revenue is aggrieved on this, they have taken the grounds - ii) During 1996-97, inputs were not defined and these goods were not declared. iii) Note 7 relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeal) to denying the credit is not relevant for clearance under Rule 57F (3), (4) & (5).2. Considered. The processing of inputs is resulting in the efforts/rejected pipes, which are being called as waste by the department ...

indorama Synthetics (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs. 28,58,643/- and penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- imposed upon the applicant by denying them the benefit of modvat credit in respect of furnace oil used as fuel for production of electricity which is turn was used in the residential premises of the factory staff.2. Assailing that impugned order on merits as also on limitation, Shri V.S. Nankani Ld. Advocate draws our attention to the provisions of Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules which defined inputs and allowed credit on the fuel used for generation of electricity which is used for manufacture of final product for any other purpose (emphasis provided), within the factory of production. As such he submits that in as much as the residence of the technical staff of the factory was within the factory premises, use of electricity in residential area would not get excluded from the modvat provisions on this ground. He also submit that th...

Trimurthi Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT743Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant Company availed credit of Rs. 84,801.00 on input weighing 90.165MTS of Iron and Steel products under Rule 57A on documents issued by a manufacturer viz. M/s. Jain Udyog, Tadesara Distt. Rajnandgaon. A notice was issued to the appellant to deny the credits and impose penalties on the rounds that the said M/s. Jain Udyog, had only issued the duty paying documents and had not supplied any duty paid goods to the appellants. i) Supplier had not manufactured the said goods so the same could not be supplied, as the supplier did not even have the raw material shown to have been purchased by the supplier i.e. plate shearing, plate defective, plate cuttings, end cut of oil, were not inputs for use in relation to the manufacture of hot rolled Iron and Steel products. ii) There was no facility to manufacture hot rolled in the supplier's factory and they did not sufficient electric load sanction from Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, the load sanction was insufficient to run the hot r...

Hajoori and Sons Vs. Cc Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT370Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue two issues raised namely; jurisdiction and inclusion of rental charges on bottles & wooden crates in the assessable value. As regards the jurisdiction, we find that as far as the rules for the relevant period are concerned, it was the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara who had the jurisdiction as per Rule 2 (5)(iia) (c) of the Central Excise Rules. The reliance placed by the Revenue on an office order dated 31.12.97 reallocating the jurisdiction to Commissioner (A), Mumbai III cannot have any effect so long as the Rule is not amended. The issue regarding rental charges on bottles and wooden crates is covered against the Revenue by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vijayawada Bottling Co. Ltd. v. CCE GunturVishal Beverages (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE Indore 1999(34) RLT 715 (CEGAT) against the Revenue.2. In the appeal filed by the assessee challenge is against inclusion of notional interest on deposits in the assessable value of the g...

Lucky Dyeing Mills (P) Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty demanded arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded a total duty of Rs. 1,82,13,824/- being the Central Excise duty allegedly evaded, imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on M/s. Lucky Dyeing Mills (P) Ltd. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on Shri Onibhai Ismailbhai Baluwala, director of the Mill, under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of processed manmade fabrics on job work basis. On physical verification of the stock, the officers of the Central Excise, who visited the Mill, found that the applicants failed to account for grey fabrics which were received in the factory for processing. The director of the company and the present applicant admitted before the officers that the grey fabrics in question were processed and removed from the factory w...

Uni Deritend Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants had filed refund claim pertaining to the period 01/03/88 to 22/06/88 of differential duty paid against an order of Assistant Commissioner dated 16/08/88. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16/08/88 of Assistant Commissioner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter rested there since the assessee did not file any appeal against this order of rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower authority rejected the claim on the basis of time bar and that appellants had not filed any appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the protest duty paid under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules was meaningless. "I have carefully gone through the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the OIO No. 23/BHD/90/Refund/1054 dated 04/04/90 passed by the lower authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,22,552/- on the grounds that (i) the assessee have failed to comply with the provisions of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 2...

Shreem Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT262Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is filed on the following findings of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - "4. The impugned order and the submissions have been considered by me carefully. In this case the inputs sent to the job worker have been destroyed in the accidental fine at job workers premises before they are being used in the manufacture of final product and have not received back within the stipulated period to the original manufacturer. Since the inputs, on which the credit of duty availed was used but was not returned to the appellants premises, or cleared for export or for home consumption on duty payment, the appellants are not eligible for the credit. Hence the Order-in-Original confirming the duty on the goods lost is in order. However no penalty is leviable as the loss was beyond the control of the appellants. The Order-in-original accordingly modified." (a) The loss of the goods at the job workers premises by fire is not questioned. The return of the job worked goods is due to an...

Awdhesh Narayan K. Singh Vs. Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR346; 2004(3)BomCR669; 2004(1)MhLj676

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. The present reference reminds us observations of Bhagwati, C.J. (as His Lordship then was), in Zinabhai Ramchhodji Darji v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1972) 13 GLR 1. Dealing with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, speaking for the Division Bench, the learned Chief Justice observed :'It is extraordinary and unique piece of legislation framed without much scientific accuracy of language and many of its provisions are so unhappily worded that it is difficult to penetrate their confusion and obscurity. This is not the first time that we are called upon to face the complexities of this legislation and with our growing acquaintance with its provisions, we must confess to a feeling of reluctant respect which one feels for an old touch sparring partner whom one has never been able to knock out.' 2. Reference in Writ Petition No. 285 of 1995 has been made by the Division Bench on August 7, 2001 as the Bench felt that the provisions in Rules 33 and 35 of t...

Narendra Kantilal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Ap ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom166; 2004(1)ALLMR798; II(2004)BC585; 2004(1)BomCR707; 2004(1)MhLj704

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. A batch of writ petitions has been placed before this Bench. The principal question of law that arises for consideration is 'Do the courts and authorities constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (the 1960 Act) and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (the 2002 Act) continue to have jurisdiction to entertain applications/disputes submitted before them by the Co-operative Banks incorporated under the 1960 Act and the 2002 Act for an order for recovery of debts due to them, after establishment of a Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (the 1993 Act)'.2. The events that led to the placing of all these petitions before us are that the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Scheduled Multi-State Cooperative Bank, filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the 1993 Act for recovery of certain amounts from M/s Star Glass Works. Before the Debts Recovery ...

Govardhandas S/O Paikaji Brahmane Vs. Shridharprasad Rautrai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR43; 2004(1)MhLj921

S. A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and Order dated 7-8-2002, passed in an appeal, confirming the order of the trial Court, rejecting the petitioner's plaint. The petitioner sued the respondent for possession of poultry farm. The poultry farm was given on lease, for which an Agreement of Lease was entered into between the parties on 26th July, 1999, at Nagpur. What was leased out is described in Clause 1 of the said lease-deed, which reads as follows :'That the lessor hereby leases the Poultry Farm comprising two 'pucca' sheds and 'pucca' godown (in between the sheds and pucca varandah on eastern side of the sheds used as Brooder/Feed storage etc.) (total about 4200 square feet) and also Four brooder rooms and two living rooms, small bathroom and Chaukidar's shed (total about 750 sq.ft.), for a period of 11 months from the 1st day of August, 1999 to 30th June, 2000. The tenancy shall be monthly according to English Calender month.'2. Since the site of the p...