Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Cce Vs. D.C. Polyster (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT396Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The refund claim of Rs. 5,24,345/- was sanctioned to the respondents under Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules 1944, whereas under the same order, the claim for Rs. 88,602/- was rejected. The learned Commissioner (appeals), set aside the order denying the claim for Rs. 88,602/- 2. In the instant appeal, it has been pleaded that out of the said amount of Rs. 88,602/-, an amount of Rs. 75,263/- referred to the accumulation of Modvat credit with reference to the duty paid on inputs under Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles) Act 1978.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in holding that the additional duty of Excise (T & TA) is also refundable on the export of the final product by the assessee on which such duty was not leviable, when cleared for home consumption.3. In the appeal, it has been stated that, Notification No. 24/95 CE(NT) 20/5/94 as amendment, issued under Rule 57A, provided that, additional duty of (T & TA) availed in respect of ...

Cce Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC45

1. When this appeal at the instance of the Revenue was taken up for hearing an application for adjournment on the side of the Respondent was brought to our notice. Since the appeal is of the year 1998 we are not inclined to adjourn this case. We therefore proceeded to hear the Departmental Representative and perused the records of the case.2. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue the issue arising for consideration is whether woven pile fabric of man-made staple fibre manufactured by the respondent are eligible for exemption under Notification 109/86 dated 27.1.86. Both the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority took the view that Respondents are entitled to such exemption. Aggrieved by the above the Revenue has come up in appeal.3. The original authority accepted the classification claimed by the respondent-assessee and classified the product under Chapter 5801.30 equivalent to sub-heading 55.07 and found eligible for exemption under Notification No. 109/86...

Vitthal Dyeing and Printing Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the four cases have been taken up together as they are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). We have heard Shri M.M. Saiyed, learned Consultant for M/s. Vitthal Dyeing & Printing Mills and M/s. Rainbow Dyeing, Smt. S.S.Mani Prakash, learned Advocate for M/s. J.I. Gandhi Silk Mills and Shri Hemant Kothikar, learned SDR for the Revenue.2. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madias in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2002 (52) RLT 636 we proceed to take up the appeals themselves for disposal.3. In the case of Vitthal Dyeing and Printing Mills the appellants' grievance is that their appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without extending an effective opportunity of personal hearing. Similar is the grievance of M/s. J.I. Gandhi Silk Mills Pvt.Ltd. It has also been contended before us that their app...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Trinetra Texturisers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT384Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are Revenue's appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Surat. The facts in brief are that the respondents had taken modvat credit on the basis of duty paying documents received from their suppliers. Subsequently, the suppliers had issued credit notes in favour of the respondents at the rate of Rs. 2/- per kg. On noticing this fact, the departmental authorities have coerced the respondents to debit the input credit amount, equivalent to the duty redemption consequent to value reduction on the inputs, which occurred consequent to such credit notes. The respondents, complying with these directions, did reverse the corresponding amounts, as directed. There was no correction in the duty paying documents requiring the said correction in the credit amount.Therefore, the respondents suo moto took credit of the reversed amount.Proceedings through show cause notices were initiated against the respondents by alleging that the respondent...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Khedut Oilcake Inds.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC409

1. These are five appeals from the revenue against a common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and are accordingly being disposed off through a common order.2. The respondents are manufacturers of solvent extracted refined vegetable oil from oil cakes. They had erroneously paid cess at the rate of Rs. 5/- per quintal in terms of the provisions contained in Section 3(1) of the Vegetable Oils Cess Act, 1983 and subsequently claimed refund thereof. The claims were apparently beyond the limitation of six months, hence rejected through a set of five orders-in-original by the Assistant Commissioner, under Section 11B as time barred. The said initial orders were challenged before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication for the limited purposes of ascertaining the fact as to whether the incidence of the said duty was passed on or otherwise, and also to verify as to whether the payment o...

Tulsabai W/O Maroti Shelke Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR54; 2004(2)MhLj48

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dated 11th November, 2003 by which the Additional Commissioner has upheld the finding of the Additional Collector that the respondent had not completed 21 years at the time of nomination, but, nonetheless declined to exercise powers under Section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act.3. Respondent No. 3 Sharda submitted her nomination for election to the post of Member, Gram Panchayat. It confirmed that she has not completed the age of 20 years. Since Section 13 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act provides that only a person who is not less than 21 years of age is qualified to be elected for any ward of the village, the petitioner applied for having respondent No. 3 disqualified under Section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. Section 16 reads as follows:'(1) If any member of a panchayat, -- (a) who is elected or a...

Hitechi Jewellery Industries Ltd. Vs. Choksi Arvind Jewellers

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR490; [2005]127CompCas366(Bom); (2004)2CompLJ496(Bom); [2004]51SCL586(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th November, 2002, whereby the Company Judge admitted the Company Petition filed by the present respondent and ordered advertisement of petition.3. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the appellant, made two-fold submission : (1) that the impugned order is not a speaking order. According to the learned counsel, the order admitting winding up petition affects the rights of the parties and is in the nature of decision and therefore such order must be supported by reasons. He relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Ishwarbhai Somabhai Patel : AIR1959Bom386 , and in the case of Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute : [1986]161ITR835(SC) , and (2) the mere fact that the Company Petition No. 540 of 2000 has been admitted by itself does not furnish a ground for admission of the company petition. The learned counsel for the app...

Prashant @ Rohit S/O Ghasiram Tandon Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR87

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.M. Daga for the applicant as well as Mr. D.B. Patel, learned A.P.P. for State/respondent.2. Rule, returnable and heard forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The facts leading to the controversy, may be summarised, in brief, as follows:4. The applicant is prosecuted alongwith 5 others by the Police Station Officer, Ballarshah, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. vide Crime No. 245/2002. The charge-sheet in the matter is filed and case was also committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, at Chandrapur. It seems from the record that thereafter, the case is handed over to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, framed the charge against the applicants and other co-accused. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses, in the trial and last witness i.e. P.W. 19 who is the Investigating Officer, is examined ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nrc Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

"2.12 The Order of Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in as much as he has ordered that the spent / waste of mercury should be treated as waste arising from the processing inputs. In the instant case since the assessee had admitted that mercury cleared contained impurities and it is sold in market, the test of marketability is fulfilled and the same will be liable to duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. CCE Calcutta, 1994 (74) ELT 22 (SC) have held that "Marketability is a decisive test for durability".Wyeth Laboratories v. CCE has held that since the catalyst is entitled for input credit under Rule 57A as no distinctions are made in the modvat rules between input catalyst or input raw material, the spent catalyst should be treated in the similar manner as the waste / scrap of input. 2.14 The Commissioner (Appeals) has however erred in setting aside the order in original in as much as he has decided the issue on the basis of submissions made befo...

Mudra MarkfIn P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute in this case relates to claim by the appellants to exemption under Notification No. 1/95-CE dtd.04/01/1995.Shri S. Surinarayanan, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the impugned goods are eligible for the said exemption and that the requirement for recommendation by the Development Commissioner introduced under amending Notification No. 31/98-CE dtd. 15/09/1998 is not relevant as this amendment was made after the impugned goods were received by the appellants. He further states that the Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, E.O.U.Section in their letter dtd. 04/11/1997 had specifically permitted import of capital goods worth US $ 216670 under Para 2 (iii), and under para 2 of the Annexure to the said letter the Ministry had also allowed procurement of capital goods indigenously without payment of excise duty. He further submits that in view of the specific permission from the concerned Ministry, the require...