Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Bhagavati Bright Bars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT798Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on channels, angles and threaded bars. The appellant claimed the credit on the ground that these were components or accessories of electric overhead cranes it intended to manufacture which is to be used within its factory. The credit has been denied on the ground that the crane was not capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57G, since it was not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final products.2. It may no doubt be true, as contended, that by application of the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Jawahar Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3, material handling equipment, and therefore crane in question could qualify as capital goods under Rule 57Q. However, if the crane is already in existence, any recognisable component parts would quality for credit under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (...

Gujarat Containers Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC197

1. The above appeals involve a common issue for determinantion and are hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that Service Tax was imposed on the services provided by Goods Transport Operators in relation to carriage of goods. Earlier, service Tax was required to be paid by a person availing of such services and show cause notices were issued requiring the appellants to pay. service tax for Goods Transport Operators' services provided to them, since they had neither applied for registration with the Central Excise authorities nor paid the service tax, hence contravening Section 68 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1944, directing them to furnish quarterly return in Form ST-3 and also proposing recovery of interest for delayed payment of service tax and proposing penal action under Section 76, 77 & 79 of the Finance Act, 1944.3. Prior to the issue of the notices, the validity of Rule 2 (d) (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules 1944 was chal...

Mtz (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1005Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to Modvat credit on the basis of gate passes which bore address, not of the appellant's factory but some other factory elsewhere. The denial of the credit on this ground by the Additional Commissioner has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The only ground in the appeal is that the receipt of the goods by the appellant can be established by means of collateral documents and the credit therefore would not be disallowed.3. I am unable to accept this submission. The credit could only be taken on the basis of invoices addressed to the manufacturer, who received the inputs. If, because of the claim that the inputs had been received in the appellant's factory, the contention is accepted, it would follow that credit can be taken without following any of the formalities under the rules. Where rules or formalities or procedures are prescribed, that procedure...

R.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in manufacture of Iron and Steel Products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and also availing modvat credit facility on inputs used in the manufacture of final products. The officers of Central Excise (Prev) visited the factory of the appellants on 07/09/95 and detected shortage of inputs, such as M.S. Slabs, M.S. Angles and other re-rollable material to the extent of 555.843 MTs, as compared to the stock recorded on that date in the RG23A Part-I register. In addition, 12.000 MTs of M.S. Slab out of the total quantity of 42.725 MT of total inputs was found outside the factory premises. The physical weighment of the finished goods took place resulting in detection of shortage of certain quantity of M.S. Angles and M.S. Squares as well as excess unaccounted stock of M.S.Z. Section. The total quantity of 64.395 MT of excisable goods was thus cleared b the appellants on delivery memos without payment of du...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Globe Auto Agency

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent to this appeal was engaged in the trading in parts of motor vehicles. It purchased from their manufacturer such item as crash guard, and luggage carrier for motor cycles which were in unfinished form and sent them to a job worker who undertook upon them such processes as electroplating, power cutting, fixing of reflectors etc.and returned the product to the respondent. The respondent thereafter sold the goods. Notice issued to it proposed to recover duty on the goods that the respondent sold on the ground that the treatment to which the unfinished goods were subjected amounted to manufacture since the finished product emerged from the unfinished product. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and imposed penalty. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the processes in question did not amount to manufacture. He further noted that such processes had been carried out not by the respondent but by the job worker ...

Sudal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and requests decision on merits.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the dismissal by the Assistant Commissioner of the claim for refund under Rule 173L on the ground that the assessee was not able to establish that the goods had in fact been rejected by the buyer and hence required to be remanufactured, and on the further ground that quantity of goods so cleared for remanufacturing was substantially higher than the goods what were received.3. I agree with the appellant that there is no requirement in Rule 173L for production of evidence that the goods have been rejected by the buyer. The rule will apply in cases where the goods are received in the factory of manufacture or in any other factory for being remade, refined or reconditioned or subject to any other similar process.However, it is necessary, for this purpose, to establish that the goods which were received were the ones which was cleared...

Ratnagiri Jillah Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh and ors. Vs. State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR871; 2003(6)BomCR602; (2004)ILLJ263Bom; 2004(1)MhLj268

S.J. Vazifdar J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union. petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are employees of and are also employee directors on the board of directors of Respondent No. 4, the Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. selected/nominated by petitioner No. 1 in accordance with the provisions of Section 73BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter the said Act). Respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar, cooperative societies. Respondent No. 3 is the District Deputy Registrar. Respondent No. 5 is a member of the Industrial Court.2. The petition involves the interpretation of Section 73BB of the Act. The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps for implementation of the provisions of Section 73BB of the act in its true spirit and intent which according to them requires the appointment of persons appointed under Section 73BB not merely on the board of directors/mana...

Ganesh R. Baheti Vs. the University of Pune and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR207; 2003(5)BomCR464; 2003(4)MhLj140

S.J. Vazifdar J.1. The petitioner is a student of architecture pursuing the B. Arch course in the second respondent college. Respondent No. 2 is the Vivekananda Institute of Technology's Padmabhushan Dr. Vasantdada Patil College of Architecture. Respondent No. 2 is affiliated to respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw its letter cancelling his admission to the 4th year of the B. Arch course for the academic year 2000-2001 and cancelling his examination forms for the 4th and 5th years of that course, to forthwith declare his results for the 4th year (seventh semester) and for the 5th year (eight semester) and to withdraw its letter dated 4th May 2001.3. The petitioner finds himself in a predicament caused by the inadvertence of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 went unrepresented before us. Respondent No. 1 admits that at least two acts on its part were incorrect but claims that they were through inadverten...

The Court on It's Own Motion Vs. Sou. Jayashree Khadilkar Pandey,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)129; 2003BomCR(Cri)1405

Palshikar, J.The facts giving arise to this suo motu proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are as follows: 2. That the Government of Maharashtra had appointed one man commission under the Commission of Enquiries Act, 1952 and nominated Hon'ble Shri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a Judge of the Bombay High Court (as he then was) to be the Commission. It was a one member Commission. The Commission was appointed to enquiry into the causes of bomb blasts which rocked the entire metropolis of Bombay in 1993. The articles of reference included enquiry into existence or otherwise of establishments, organizations etc, responsible for such outburst.3. The Commission worked for five years and submitted its report to the Government of Maharashtra. In the report certain observations were made in relation to some newspapers and some parties. The Government of Maharashtra later on rejected the report. However, Shri Nilkanth Khadilkar who was then Editor of Navakal wrote a series of articles in th...

Ravindra Dayaram Kolhaye Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj719

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This petition is directed against thecommunication dated 29-6-1999 from the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, ZillaParishad, Amravati, informing the petitioner that his father took voluntaryretirement and, therefore, no appointment could be given to him oncompassionate ground on the basis of the Govt. Resolution No.AKP/1093/2335/P.K.- 90/93- A dated 26-10-1994.2. We have perused the documents annexed with the petition. It appearsthat the petitioner's father was in the employment of respondent No.2 from 21-12-1963 to 31-10-1998. It appears that the father of the petitioner took voluntaryretirement on medical ground as he had suffered Myocardial infarction (heartattack) twice, i.e. first on 1-1-1987 and second on 16-1-1987. The petitioner'sfather was advised rest and, therefore, he took retirement on medical ground from1-2-1988. The petitioner thereafter had submitted the applications dated 28-5-1992, 13-8-1992, 25-5-1993, 22-9-1997, 13-11-1997 and 4-6-1999 to therespond...