Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

SarfuddIn AminuddIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj481

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Mirza,learned A.P.P., for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner wasarrested sometimes in January, 1994 by the police personnel of police stationChandur Railway and he was convicted by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Amravati, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian PenalCode by the order dated 21-1-1995 and is undergoing sentence of lifeimprisonment at Central Prison, Amravati. The appeal preferred by the petitioner,bearing Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2002, against his conviction has also beendismissed by this Court. It is contended that the brother and father of thepetitioner are also convicted in this case and they are in jail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner hadmade an application to the Competent Authority on 15-7-2002 for grant offurlough but the sai...

Shobha Bhaurao Rane and ors. Vs. Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1831; 2003(4)MhLj750

R.K. Batta, J. 1. The applicants sought maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court vide judgment dated 3-6-1995 had granted maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 150/- each per month to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application. This order was challenged by the applicants as also respondent by filing separate revisions which were disposed of vide common judgment dated 16-3-1999. The revision filed by the applicant-wife was dismissed, but the revision filed by the respondent-husband was partly allowed inasmuch as the amount of maintenance was payable from the date of order.2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned Advocate for the respondent. The limited controversy in this revision is whether the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of order or from the date of filing of application. The trial Court had ordered the payment of maintenance from the date of filing of application...

Hbl Nife Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of a type of electric battery in the manufacture of which silver nitrate powder form. It obtained silver powder from silver nitrate which is supplied to it by job worker Modison Ltd. The appellant supplied to Modison Ltd. quantities of silver scrap and nitric acid and other goods which were utilised by Modison Ltd. in the manufacture of silver nitrate. The appellant sought to avail of the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 214/86. This notification exempts from duty and as provided in it, it intimated the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over its job worker's factory. It also sent a copy of the intimation to its jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The job worker manufactured the silver nitrate and cleared it without payment of duty.The notice issued to the appellant alleged that the benefit of the exemption contained in notification was not available to silver nitrate manufactured by the job worker for the re...

C.M. Smith and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT282Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri H.R. Shah, Manager is present on behalf of the appellants. He submitted that both the appeals relate to denial of Modvat credit on lubricating oil and Steel Shots. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly concedes that he has no objection for grant of Modvat credit so far as Steel Shots is concerned in view of the decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad - 1996 (88) E.L.T 678 (Tribunal). As regards the lubricating oil, the contention of the ld. JDR is that it was a HSD and not lubricating oil. It will not be covered in the inputs and Modvat credit cannot be allowed on this. Even if it is lubricating oil it will not qualify as input under Notification 8/95, dated 16-3-1995 because it is classifiable under sub-heading 2710.90.2. Shri H.R. Shah, Manager appearing on behalf of the appellants could not bring to my notice any case law or the provisions under which the said Mod-vat credit on HSD could be allo...

Mahavir Corporation,gaunir Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant Mahavir Corporation, imported in various dates between 1997 and 1998, live consignments, which, in the bills of entry filed their clearance were declared to be "nylon tricot flocking fabrics" "(insole sheets for leather footwear)". The benefit of the exemption contained in entry 108 of the table to notification 11/97 was claimed and was granted. The goods were cleared on payment of concessional rate of duty available in terms of the notification.2. Entry 108 of the table to the notification exempts from duty "The following goods for use in the leather industry, namely:- (1) parts, consumables and other items specified in List 3(A)., (2) other parts, consumables and items specified in list 3(B)." The investigation carried out by the department as to the sue of nylon flocking fabric in the leather industry and it is concluded that the fabrics had many uses apart from making as insole and midsole for footwear. In the course of the investigation, statements of an importer...

i.C.i. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT405Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the period in dispute is December, 1987 to September, 1993. The factory was sold on 1-10-1993 to M/s. Terene Fibres (I) Ltd. (TFIL in short) who started manufacturing polyester staple fibre in their factory. On 30-4-1996 the Department took samples of crimped waste, fibre waste and soiled waste manufactured and declared by TFIL and sent the same for test by the Dy. Chief Chemist.The Dy. Chief Chemist in his test report dated 15-5-96 gave opinion that these are other than waste. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 25-2-1997 finalised the provisional assessment classifying the aforesaid four types of waste as good fibre and demanded differential duty. On appeal filed by the appellants the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 17-6-99 dropped the proceedings in respect of crimped waste and confirmed the dem...

Polymech Plast Machines Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT706Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has found that each of these persons paid duty on the plastic injection moulding machines that they manufactured and cleared by underdeclaring the capacity and dimensions and by not including in the value of goods the cost of free parts supplied along with the goods, confirmed the demand for duty issued to them and imposed penalties.2. The contention of the common Counsel for the appellants with regard to Polymech Plast Machines Ltd. is this. In the course of the proceedings before the Commissioner, the appellant had asked for, and had been granted, permission to cross-examine its managing director, personnel manager and accounts manager, whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notice. Cross-examination of these persons concluded on 20-3-1996. In the submission filed on 29-3-1996, the appellant had requested for a personal hearing. The Commissioner has passed this order without according an opportunity. He ...

Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Polychem Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT501Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against allowing credit on P.B. Warm Wheel, Flow Switch and Refrigeration Compressor. Shri M.H.Sheikh, Learned J.D.R appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that as regards P.B. Warm Wheel, it is used in effluent treatment plant for the treatment of effluent or industrial waste, which is totally a separate process distinguishable from the manufacturing process. The credit is to be allowed on the goods utilised for manufacture of final products only and not for post manufacturing processes. As regards flow switch, he submits that it is used for compressor controlling the manufacturing process of finished product and does not contribute to bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the credit on flow switch is not allowable. So far as refrigeration compressor is concerned, which is used for the chilling plant of water and there is no direct nexus with the manufacturing final product. Therefore,...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Aroma International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT593Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This Rectification of Mistake (ROM for short) application has been filed by Revenue seeking rectification in the Final Order No.CI/1418/WZB/2002, dated 18-5-2002, of this Bench.2. The Bench, after elaborate discussion of the material on record had held, vide that order, as follows : (a) The Commissioner's order regarding extension of time under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for issue of notice was not to be interfered with; (b) The Petitioner was required to file necessary modification to the Bill of Entry for provisional release of the goods under seizure and for this purpose they should produce SIL licences to cover the above said provisional release of goods after assessment of the goods under seizure; "(C1) The detention letter to the Custom have been issued by D.R.I, on 2-3-2001 and the cloves were ordered to be withdrawn from the custodians Auction List vide letter dtd. 28-6-2001 No. DRI/BZU/0/21/2001 of Deputy Director DRI-Mumbai. The 'detention' of the goods cover...

Marmo Abrasives Pvt. Ltd., Girish Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the processes undertaken by the appellant on the synthetic diamond powder that it imports, amounts to manufacture.2. The processes are not in dispute, and consist of heating the powder in a mixture with caustic soda, thereafter washing it and putting it in a solution of hydrochloride, and washing it once again and drying it.By the first process it is claimed to dissolve any organic impurities that it may contain in the caustic soda mixture which is washed of. By means of second process the mechanical impurities are sought to be removed. It is stated that after being subjected to these processes diamond detains a very insignificant proportion of these impurities and is thereafter used to cut and polish gem qualify diamonds. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has concluded that by means of these processes a new product emerges, having for its use for cutting and polishing diamond and has classified the diamon...