Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ujagar Textile Inds (P) Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT683Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All the appeals filed by the Revenue are being taken up together as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, by which the proceedings initiated against the respondents have been dropped.2. As per the facts on record, M/s. Ujagar Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the processing of grey fabrics. The officers of Central Excise intercepted one vehicle carrying the processed textile fabrics from the said respondents' factory. On verification, the officers found that the duty paying documents accompanying the goods in question were not matching with the description of the goods found in the said vehicle. Accordingly, the goods as also the vehicle were seized and brought back to the factory, where further verification was done. As a result of examination of the documents and verification of the stock, the officers found that the records were not maintained properly and in some cases, there were excess quantity of the grey fa...

BasseIn Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT371Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were denied modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 81,900/- along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellants used various inputs for manufacture of final products, viz. patent and proprietary medicines, some of which are chargeable to nil duty whereas the rest are cleared on payment of duty at the appropriate rate. The appellants removed the medicines at nil rate of duty without payment of 8% of the value of such goods, therefore the said amount was demanded from them in terms of the impugned orders. In the appeal, it has been submitted that the allegation that they had taken credit in respect of the inputs which have been used in the exempted final product, is not correct. It is claimed by the appellants that they maintained separate inventory records for exempted items, and the allegation that the common raw materials are used for dutiable and duty free final products is imaginary. While this version is recorded in the order-in-original, the same is counte...

Arihant Bullion Gem and Jewellery Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These modification applications have been filed against the determination of pre-deposit amounts required to be made to meet the requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.2. After hearing the learned advocate for the applicants, this common order is being passed, after considering the submission made. (a) The earlier order did not consider the submissions made by the appellants. (b) The appellants' financial position does not merit the determination of the high amounts as ordered in the stay applications. (c) Certain part amounts have been deposited and extension of time in any case should be made to enable these appellants to comply with the directions.3. On considering the material, it is found that that there is no new material brought in the grounds and submitted before us in the applications to call for reconsideration of the amounts arrived at, by this bench's order dated 19.08.2003, The modification applications on merits are therefore dismissed. Keeping in min...

Nrb Bearings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the claim has been made for credit of duty paid on capital goods, however no corresponding declaration under Rule 57T(1) or 57T(2) has been made nor any request for condonation of making such declaration has been submitted. The appellants disputed this by claiming that the declarations were filed forclaiming credit in respect of some of the capital goods on which credit has been reversed by them under instructions from the department and which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. It is however admitted that in some of the declarations, Rule 57A has been quoted wrongly. However, the description of the capital goods has been correctly mentioned. It is pleaded that it is a curable defect and for this irregularity, the credit should not be denied as held by the Tribunal in several judgments.3. Learned DR, on the contrary, pleads that filing of a declaration is not an empty formality and on account of non-filing ...

Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC660Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. who manufactured on job work for Mirc Electronics Ltd. cabinets for television sets by using moulds owned and supplied by the latter, could take credit under 57Q of the duty paid on these moulds by their manufacturer. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has found such credit to be impermissible on the ground that the manufacturer was not the owner of the goods, demanded the credit so taken and imposed penalty on the manufacturer and Mirc Electronics under Rule 209A for abetting taking wrong credit. He also ordered confiscation of the moulds.3. Credit was taken on various dates in June 1997 and January 1999. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the rules as it stood during this period do not mandate as it did prior to its amendment on 17.6.1994 that ownership of capital goods as a criteria for taking credit. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in German...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The dispute in the instant appeal by the Revenue relates to availability of modvat credit on 'lubricating oils" and "anti-seize agents". In the grounds of appeal, it is claimed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by placing reliance on the Tribunal's order in respect of the respondents own case in order no. C-1/305-314/99/WRB dated 19.1.2000. It is claimed that the Tribunal has erred in reaching the conclusion that credit is admissible.3.It is noticed that the correct approach for the Commissioner would have been to challenge the decision of the Tribunal before the appropriate authorities rather than filing this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which follows the Tribunal's decision. It is also seen that the larger bench of the Tribunal in its decision reported at 2000 (38) RLT 718 (CCE, Meerut vs. Modi Rubber Ltd & Others and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Others vs CCE, Allahabad & Ors.) has held that lubricating oil and greases are el...

Berar General Education Society Vs. Jt. Charity Commissioner and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR476; 2004(2)MhLj189

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Kankale, the learned A.G.P. for the State and Dr. Soni, appeared in person.2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.3. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati by which the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has during the pendency of appeal against the existence of Change Report given certain directions to the trustees for proper administration of Trust.4. The facts relevant to the impugned order are that the Change Report was submitted in the year 1997 in which the present petitioner-Trust came to be elected. This Change Report was accepted on 4-6-2001. Against the acceptance of Change Report, the respondent No. 2 who appears in person filed an appeal. In this appeal having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati passed an order dated 5-7-2003 which was subsequently modified by him on 25-7-2003. By earlier...

Smt. Mandabai Wd/O Prabhakar Pudake Vs. Daljitrai S/O Dinanath Chhabra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC550; 2004(2)ALLMR803; (2004)106BOMLR900

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal arises out of the common judgment dated 13.9.1990 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 95 of 1988 filed by the widow and minor daughter of the deceased and Claim Petition No. 166 of 1988 filed by the mother of the deceased Prabhakar under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) claiming compensation on the ground of inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the widow and minor daughter of the deceased.2. Brief facts are as under :Prabhakar died in an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, i.e. the Truck bearing registration No. MWY 4648. The accident occurred on 2.1.1988 at about 3.30 p.m. near Jai Santosh Traders, New Subhedar Layout, Nagpur. The deceased was proceeding on his bicycle and when he reached near the spot of incident the truck involved in the accident gave violent dash to him causing his instantaneous death on the spot. The first information report...