Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Boc India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR102; 2003(158)ELT685(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj937

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. During the process of manufacturing the marketable Nitrogen gas, whether the impure Nitrogen gas discharged into atmosphere as a safety measure can be made liable to excise duty is the question raised in this petition. The authorities below have held that since the Nitrogen gas is excisable under the Excise Tariff. The Petitioners are liable to pay the excise duty till the duty is exempted. According to the Petitioners, the Nitrogen gas with impurities released into the atmosphere a safety measure is not a marketable goods and hence is not excisable, even though the Nitrogen gas as such is an excisable item under the Excise Tariff.2. The Petitioners carry on the business of manufacturing Liquid Oxygen, Liquid Nitrogen and Nitrogen gas. For that purpose, the Petitioners have established fractional distillation plant. According to the Petitioners, the manufacture of liquid Oxygen, Liquid Nitrogen and Nitrogen gas is obtained by the following process:(i) By using the f...

Rajaram Bandekar Srigao Mines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Stephen Fernandes and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ514Bom

R. J. Kochar, J. 1. The appellant/employer is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on September 7/13, 2001 in Writ Petition No 72/1998, wherein the respondent No. 1 employee, as the original petitioner had questioned the legality and propriety of the Award Part I passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. CGIT-2/50 of 1988 holding that the petitioner employee was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore it was held that the Reference was not maintainable. The learned single Judge, by the impugned Order, quashed and set aside the aforesaid Award of the Tribunal and held and declared that the original petitioner was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for trial on merits.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the Reference was that he was unlawfully terminated from employment with effect from June 30, 1985. He, therefore...

Sadashiv K. Sutar Vs. Kolhapur Zilla Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR115; 2004(2)BomCR111

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The petitioner Sadashiv Sutar was employed with the Kolhapur Zilla Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. On 18th April, 1992, the said bank entered into a settlement with the Co-operative Bank Employees' Union in relation to the employees of the said bank for the period from 1st April, 1991 to 30th September, 1994. By an order dated 22nd August, 1992 passed by the Registrar of co-operative societies, the Board of Directors of the said bank was superseded and the Board of Administrators was appointed for the management of the said bank. The Board of Administrators by letter dated 22nd June, 1994 took various steps for reduction of financial liability towards the payment of salary to its employees, whereupon, on 4th July, 1994,...

Mahendra Indermal Borana Vs. Anil Shankar Joshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)32; IV(2004)BC437

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable worthwith.2. The respondent No. 1 (original complainant) had filed a complaint against the present applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C, Court No. 4, Pune and the said complaint was numbered as 1482/2000.3. On 13.1.2003 as the complainant remained absent, due to absence of the complainant, the learned J.M.F.C, Court No. 4, Pune dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of Cri.P.C. and acquitted the accused (applicant). Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 151/2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By order dated 29.5.2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune allowed the revision application and restored the complaint back to the file of the learned J.M.F.C. Being aggrieved by t...

Glencore India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is against a duty demand made, on a prior bill of entry filed on 29.12.1999 for which the final entry was granted and a consignment of edible oil allowed to be unloaded and cleared on 14.01.2000 by effecting out of charge order. Test samples were drawn a test bond was also executed with the officers of Import Assessing Group at Jawahar Custom House, Nhava Sheva. The test report was received on 20.8.2000 which goes against the appellants interest and creates the personal duty liability. However, the duty liability was raised by a Show Cause Notice dated 3rd August, 2000 and the duty demands were confirmed by an order dated 14.2.2003.2. Shri Nankani, learned advocate for the appellants took through the provisions of Section 17(4) and Section 143 and submits that in this case the demands are barred by limitation. He did not press the issue on merits of the demand and other related issues. He submits that since there was no order of provisional assessment as requi...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Shri Gangaram P. Kerkar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Whether the stay application of the Revenue is required to be rejected as proposed by Member (Judicial) Whether the application is required to be allowed, as held by Member (Technical).2. I have perused the Order passed by the Hon'ble Member (J) as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Member (T).3. Shri. M.K. Gupta, Ld. JCDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. He reiterated the order passed by the Hon'ble Member (T). The Ld. JCDR also reiterated the Revenue's Order of the Board dated 22.01.2003. He particularly drew my attention to para 3 thereof, which is reproduced as under:- "3. The aforesaid findings thus prima-facie indicated that the said car was unauthorisedly imported in contravention of the restriction imposed under Import Trade Control Order Public Notice No.3 (RE-2000) 1997 -02 dated 31.03.2000 by Shri Aditya Singh in the name of Shri Gangaram Kerkar by resorting to hawala payment and that the said car had been shipped to India by M/s. Nirvana Trading Company, Dubai who w...

The Indian Seamless Metal and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. M.P. Battin, Sr. Officer - Excise appeared on behalf of the appellants and he submitted that the Hydraulic oil used in the machinery for its smooth functioning, is eligible for modvat credit in view of the following decision :-Sipta Coated Steel Ltd. v. CCE Aurangabad-1998 (99) ELT 553 (Tri).Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Meerut v. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2. The learned representative contended that the Hydraulic oil used in the machinery is essential for the working and indirectly connected with the manufacture of the final product. Hence the same would be eligible for modvat credit. In this regard, he heavily relied on the larger bench decision (Supra).3. Shri M.H. Sheikh, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he contended that the Hydraulic oil used for running the machinery, certainly cannot be considered as being used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and as such it is not eligible for modvat credit and the Commissioner (Appeals) has ri...

Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing on the stay application, I have decided to take up the appeal for disposal. I shall refer further on to the objection raised by the departmental representative in this regard.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of medicaments. Notice issued to it proposed to recover the amount as payable under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57CC which arose as a result of the appellant having utilised inputs of which credit under 57A was taken in the manufacture of exempted final product. The second paragraph of the notice alleged that the appellant had eluded "common raw material like packing material and inactive ingredients on which modvat credit availed under Rule 57A used both in the excisable goods and exempted goods." Neither the body of the notice nor the annexure specified the details of the inputs which, it was alleged were used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The annexure only refer to invoices which exempted final product, Malarid tablets, Mebendazole tablets and P...

Cello Household Appliances Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC712Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to exemption contained in entry 25 of the table to notification 15/94 of two articles manufactured by Cello Household appliances Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, and liability to penalty on it an on Pradeep Rathod, its director.2. The items in question consist of trolleys and racks made of plastic The assessee had claimed their classification in heading 39.23 of the tariff as household articles of plastic. The Commissioner has classified the goods in heading 94.03 as items of furniture.3. The trolley, which is sold either fitted with castors or without castors consists essentially of three or four columns about 40 cm length separating circular, or rectangular, on which articles can be kept. The appellant's contention is that it is more appropriately considered to be classifiable as a household article because it is bought and sold as household article and not as furniture. From its appearance in design, it seems that the item...

Prestige Hm Polycontainer Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT829Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These Stay Applications are being disposed of by this common order as they gave arisen out of same impugned proceedings initiated by Show Cause Notice dated 01.07.2002 demanding duty for the period 25.02.2000 to 31.03.2002.2. The appellants have two units - one at Talasari (Maharashtra) and the other in the Union Territory of Daman. At the Talasari unit they manufacture HDPE Barrels and certain parts thereof. They were paying duty on the said products which were being removed to their Daman unit for placing lids and other operations, from where the goods were cleared on payment of duty once again, after availing modvat credit of the duty paid at Talasari unit.3. Valuation of goods at Talasari unit as impugned in the present proceedings. These prices were arrived at and determined under Section 4(1) (a) read with Rule 6 (b) (ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975 and Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 on the 'cost of production' and not based on the formula applied at by the appellant i.e. the r...