Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Western India Shipyard Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT666Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to exemption contained in notification 211/83 and the liability to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act of goods described as data processing machines that the respondent imported.Notice issued to it proposed to deny the benefit of the exemption and to confiscate them on the ground that they were personal computers of a value of less than Rs. 1 lakh each the import of which was prohibited.Adjudicating upon the notice, the Commissioner held the goods eligible for free importation and entitled to the benefit of the exemption.Hence this appeal by the department.2. The department's appeal has two contentions. The first is that what was imported was 55 personal computers, each of a value less than Rs. 1 lakh. As the policy stood at the time when the goods were imported in October 1995, personal computers of value less than Rs. 1.5 lakhs required an import licence. The second ground is that the goods in a...

Anil Chemicals and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufactured Emulsion Matrix falling under sub-heading 3602.00 which was cleared on payment of duty and was stored in premises adjacent to their factory. They also purchased duty paid Fuel Oil and Ammonium Nitrate Prilled which was also stored in the same shed. They owned a mobile van, which had four compartments. In three compartments they stored separately Emulsion, Matrix, Fuel Oil and Ammonium Nitrate. They took contracts for supply of prepared explosives for blasting in the mines. Such prepared explosives fall under sub-heading 3602.00. The van was taken to the mines, inside the mines the forth compartment of the mobile van was used for mixing the three ingredients in the required proportions which were then taken for blasting. Show cause notice was issued on 20-2-2001 alleging that the activity of mixing the ingredients together in the van at the mine site amounted to manufacture. It was alleged that the appellants had not taken out a licence, had not maintaine...

Prince Multiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT461Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These 3 appeals relate to and arise from the same Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II. These appeals are therefore being disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. Prince Multiplast Pvt. Ltd. (PMPL) had two units separately registered with the Central Excise in adjacent premises. They made plastic packing materials namely Crates. Another factory namely M/s.Navneet Publications was situated in the adjoining plot on the other side. This factory was closed since long with only a watchman on duty.The officers of Central Excise located 70,000 plastic crates marked with the word 'Coca-Cola' stored in the said factory. The watchman informed the officers that the crates were manufactured by M/s. PMPL and was stored in their premises. From the second unit of PMPL 87,500 plastic crates were seized. Another quantity of 4,215 crates was seized from a truck. Although the driver carried a Central Excise invoice covering the transit, which indicated duty bei...

Ashok Vithoba Ruge Vs. the State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Coun ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom78; 2003(2)ALLMR872; 2003(4)BomCR502

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The subject matter of this writ petition pertains to the land admeasuring 26257 sq.ft. of revision survey No. 599, Hissa No. 6A, situate at Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur. The petitioner prays that it be declared that the said land stands released from reservation, allotment or designation as open space (play ground) from Ichalkaranji final development plan sanctioned vide notification dated 25.5.1981 and it be further declared that petitioner is entitled to develop this land and respondent No. 2 be directed to restore possession of the said land to the petitioner.2. The petitioner claims to be owner of the aforesaid land. Originally Revision Survey No. 599, Hissa No. 6A, admeasured 52517 sq.ft. The petitioner had half share to the extent of 26257 sq.ft. therein. Petitioner's cousins had remaining half share in the said land. By notification dated 29.5.64, the State Government sanctioned development plan of Ichalkaranji Town with effect from 1.8.64. In the said plan, ...

Tukaram Motiram Shinde (Dead Through L.Rs.) Dattarao S/O Tukaram Shind ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1015; 2003(6)BomCR389; 2003(3)MhLj182

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. The substantial question of law which is required to be decided in this Second Appeal is; (1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in giving finding that the defendant do not own adjoining land to the suit land, in view of the fact that the defendant has purchased on the same date i.e. on 29-1-1970, the suit land survey No. 65/3 and Survey No. 65/4, together admeasuring 4 Acres 3 Gunthas; (2) whether the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant would attract Section 8 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Fragmentation Act, 1947' for short), and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue in view of Section 36(b) of the Fragmentation Act, 1947.3. The respondent/original plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/original defendant in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pusad which came to be registered as C...

Jry Investments Private Limited Vs. Deccan Leafine Services Ltd. and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]121CompCas12(Bom); [2004]56SCL339(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for appointment of the court receiver in respect of 5,27,650 shares of ETC Networks lying in the demat account of defendants Nos. 1, 14, 17 and 18 including the power to sell and dispose of the said shares.2. Today the plaintiffs seek relief only in respect of one lakh shares held by defendants Nos. 18, 14 and 35 each.3. The plaintiff has filed this suit, inter alia, for a declaration that the 6,50,000 shares of ETC Network Ltd. lying to the credit to the demat account of defendants Nos. 1 to 21 and 35 maintained with defendants Nos. 22 to 33 and 34, belong to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs also seek an order and direction to the defendants to transfer the said 6,50,000 shares of ETC Network lying to the credit of the demat account of defendants Nos. 1 to 21 and 35, particularly set out in exhibit F to the plaint to the plaintiffs demat account maintained with defendant No. 22, i.e., the Stock Holding Corporation of I...

Atul R. Mahajan and Essem Catalyst Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 6,18,773/- and penalty of equal amount, I find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage.Hence after granting the prayer for waiver I proceed to hear and dispose off the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The department proposed to disallow the modvat credit on Nickel Powder. The notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, who disallowed the modvat credit on 32 drums of Nickel Powder and imposed penalty of amount equal to duty. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessees preferred two appeals, one by the company and the other by its Director, along with applications under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interim order was passed directing pre-deposit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs out of the total duty and penalty. Stay order dated 26/09/2001 was issued to the appellants, and for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement the appeal...

Vinayak Industries Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants are not present but request for disposal on merits.The issue being settle din law. I take up the appeal for final disposal on granting waiver, of predeposit of duty of Rs. 18,665/-.2. The appellants filed a declaration under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules 1944. On 15.6.1998 and took credit on the inputs lying in stock as on 12.6.1998. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery not under Rule 57I, but under Rule 9(2) of the said Rules read with Section 11A of the Rules. This show cause notice dt. 9.2.99 was issued clearly beyond six months from the date of taking credit. This notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Superintendent. The Dy. Commissioner observed that the credit was claimed on a higher quantity than were shown by the documents covering their import into the factory. On this ground he denied the excess credit and denied the remaining credit. On the ground that credit was taken after six months from the date of receipt of the inputs.3. The assesse...

Pure Helium (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT858Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is about eligibility of Helium Gas as claimed by the appellant is a spare which is stated to have been used for construction of ships of Indian Navy. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant before us is that Helium Gas is imported and thereafter it is supplied to Navy for use in chromatography and diving. It is claimed by the appellant as follows :- Shri Mehta further pointed out that Helium gas supplied to Indian Navy finds use in chromatography and diving. As per the literature helium is the preferred carrier gas in gas Chromatographic instruments. (Beekmans Mark V analyser is one such instrument) due to its high thermal conductivity and inert nature. Thus it is evident that Helium gas is used as a consumable and not for testing and tuning of the instrument itself as claimed. The second use that is diving appears much more suitable and in tune with the activities of the Navy. As per the literature "Helium back ground gas...

Jayant Oil Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules 1944 does not permit taking credit of the duty paid on the inputs which go into the manufacture of final goods which are exempt from excise duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty. Rule 57CC of the Rules requires payment of duty at 8% advlorem on the final product which are admittedly exempt from payment of duty, but where modvat credit has been taken of the duty paid on the inputs going therein. The bridge is kept by virtue of Sub-rule (9) of Rule 57CC whereby a manufacturer may keep separate accounts of the inputs so utilised in the manufacture of exempted products and reverse the credit taken there upon or not take any credit of the duty paid on the inputs.2. In the present case the assessees had reversed the credit taken where the final products were free of duty. The original and the appellate authorities however insisted on following the procedure of Rule 57CC.Pushpaman Forging v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VII [2002 (149) ELT 4...