Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Madhera Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT867Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two appeals before him. The appeal by the Commissioner is only limited to his order setting aside the demand for duty on the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent.2. The respondent was, at the relevant time, engaged in the manufacture of goods and had filed lists classifying the goods in Heading 3402.90 of the tariff and claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 3 of the table to the Notification 101/66 and the goods provisionally cleared without payment of duty. The department sent samples for test, and pending its outcome, ordered the goods to be provisionally assessed. After receipt of the test report, the Assistant Collector passed orders on 25-10-1992 classifying the goods in Heading 3809.00 of the tariff. However, the RT 12 Return, during the relevant period which had earlier been provisionally assessed, was not assessed till 4-10-1994. The notice was issued on 19-12-1993 by the Superintendent calli...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Union Quality Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1090Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the benefit of the exemption provided in entry 19 of the Table to the Notification 14/92 could not be denied to the respondent before him solely for the reason that Modvat credit had been taken on the duty paid on the inputs out of which scrap was manufactured. He noted that the entry provided exemption to waste and scrap of plastic specified therein provided that it arose from the goods on which duty of excise or additional duty of customs have already been paid. In the absence of any condition in the entry, that Modvat credit could not have been availed of he held this fact would not affect the eligibility of the exemption.2. The appeal is based on a view that since Modvat credit was taken of the duty paid on the goods out of which scrap arose, they must be considered to be non-duty paid. Such a proposition is clearly unacceptable. The effect of a manufacturer taking credit of the duty paid on any inpu...

Bestorna Chemicals, A.R. Balsara Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We are concerned in this appeal of classification of the product Odonil manufactured by the applicant.2. After hearing the parties on merits and limitation, it prima facie appears to us the decision of the Tribunal in Shri Satya Sai Industries v. CCE 2000 (120) ELT 139 classifying a similar product in heading 33.07 requires reconsideration. The issue is also recurring. Therefore, we list the appeal on 22.4.2003. Status quo to be maintained in the meantime....

Krishna Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT926Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,71,431/-, demanded irregular credit availed amounting to Rs. 1,62,821/- (which alone is contested by the appellants) and Rs. 1,38,593.40 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s. Krishna Steel Industries and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on its partner.3. It is the contention of the appellants that the above mentioned amount has been disallowed and recovery thereof ordered on the basis of an enquiry stated to have been conducted for verification of invoices of various scrap dealers and that the enquiry with Shri Ganpatrao Shinde, scrap dealer, has revealed that he did not issue or raise any invoice on M/s. Krishna Steels or Shedji Sales Corporation and has not sold any type of scrap to either of them. The enquiry also revealed that certain other scrap dealers, whose names were furnished by the appellants, were non-existent and therefore credit was availed on material not received by the appellants...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Eternit Everest Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the claim for refund filed by the respondents herein was not barred by limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act 1962, as the claim is for refund of duty paid on goods which did not land in India, and therefore the provisions of Section 27 are not attracted.2. None appears for the Respondents in spite of notice hence on the Ld.SDR and perused the records. The Ld. SDR is correct in his submission that Section 27 of the Customs Act is applicable as that provision is the only one available for claim of refund of filed by any person for any amount paid representing Customs duty. Since the amount for which refund has been claimed can only be treated as representing Customs duty, it is clear that Section 27 will govern such a case. Therefore the claim having been filed beyond a period of six months prescribed under the Section, is barred by limitation. Therefore I set aside the impugned order an...

Voltas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant at the relevant time was engaged in the manufacture of water coolers and refrigerators. It, after taking permission from the proper officer, sent out in terms of Rule 56C stainless steel tanks which form the components of the water cooler and copper tubing to job worker referred to in the rule as secondary manufacture. This job worker wound the coil around outside the tank and braized it to the external surface and returned the resultant product. This product is utilised in the manufacture of water coolers. Rule 56C, as it stood at the relevant time, reads as below: Rule 56C. Special procedure for the movement of finished goods falling under Item No 68 without payment of duty.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 or Rule 9A, the Collector may, by special order and subject to the execution of a bond and such other condition as may be specified by him and subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2), permit a manufacturer (hereafter in this rule referred to as...

Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT205Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufactured colour television sets. The basic three colours namely red, blue and green are mixed to produce the desired colour effect. This process is called "White Balance". The balance adjustment is done by a machine called "White Balance Checker". This machine was disallowed as capital goods by the Commissioner on the assumption that the machine was for testing purposes.2. The technical write-up shows that it is not a testing machine. The machine is used in the process of manufacturing of CTVs. The admissibility therefore stands established.3. Cables are also disallowed. There is no reason given for this disallowance. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of the C.C.E. v.Jawahar Mills Ltd. as upheld by the Supreme Court has settled this issue in favour of the assessees....

Shri Harish Motichand Sariya, Karta and Manager of R.S. Champalal Vija ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR178; 2003(4)MhLj291; 2004(28)PTC42(Bom)

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a motion by the Plaintiff for temporary injunction for restraining the Defendants from using, in relation to non-medicated toilet preparations including tooth paste, soaps, shaving cream, shampoo, cosmetics and allied goods, the trade mark AJANTA or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark AJANTA and from using the word AJANTA as part of their corporate name or trading style of in any other manner whatsoever in relation to their business of manufacturing or trading in said goods so as to pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiff's goods. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's mark AJANTA bearing registration No. 220724-B in Class 03 by using in relation to non-medicated toilet preparations the trade mark AJANTA or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark.2. The controversy relates to the trade mark 'AJANTA' which, t...

Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)202; [2003]264ITR193(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, dt. 18th Nov., 2002, in ITA No. 3580/Mum/1999, Premier Auto Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961. The appeal pertains to asst. yr. 1995-96. Facts 2. Premier Auto Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cars. Upto and during the year under consideration, Premier Auto Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'PAL') was engaged in the manufacture of two cars viz., Padmini and Premier 118 NE at Kurla and Kalyan, respectively. PAL had plant and machinery for 118 NE at Kalyan, Kurla (gear box) and Pune (machining) (hereinafter referred to as 'Kalyan undertaking'). PAL had manufacturing facility for Padmini at Kurla. PAL entered into MOU on 11th March, 1993, with Automobile Peugeot (AP) to establish a joint venture company known as Kalyan Motors Co. Ltd. (KMCL) for manufacture and distri...

Michael Jackson, Through His Constituted Attorney Miss Indra Sajanani ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)144; 2003(4)MhLj1056

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Petitioner Michael Jackson is assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Dadar Court in Criminal Complaint No. 229/S of 1996-223/Misc. of 1996, whereby process has been issued against him on account of complaint filed by Respondent Michael Jackson Fashion (India) Ltd. - a Public Limited Company, a incorporated and registered under Companies Act 1956, having registered office at Chandra Industrial Estate, Chandra Milan, Old Nagardas Road, Mumbai and having its Corporate Office at 26 Laxmi Bhavan, Ram Maruti Road, Dadar, Mumbai through its authorised representative Mr. S.K. Sarpotdar qua offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.2. In the said complaint, of which the learned Magistrate took cognizance, allegations have been made against the petitioner, who happens to be a world famous pop singer, that in spite of entering into an agreement, he did not permit the Respondent (origi...