Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Colaba Central Co-operative Consumer Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR304; 2004(1)BomCR547

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner is the original defendant in a suit which was instituted for eviction under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 ('the Act'). An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents as Trustees of a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Under the terms of the agreement which was entered into on 6th January, 1989, a licence was conferred upon the petitioner to occupy an area on the ground floor of a building of the trust admeasuring 14,000 sq.ft. for a period of 10 years. The petitioner was under the terms of the licence agreement to pay commission at the rate of 1.1/2% on the sales of the stock-in-trade in the premises subject to a minimum of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The petitioner did not vacate the premises upon the expiry of the term stipulated in the agreement between the parties and thereupon a suit for eviction came to be filed under section 41 of the Act on 6th February, 2002. ...

Audco India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(111)LC141(Bombay)

ORDER1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.2. The issue sought to be raised before the Tribunal and before this Court is identical. The order of the Tribunal dated 19th June, 2003 challenged in this petition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('The Act for short directs pre-deposit in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The issue sought to be raised is whether or not the denial of credit of duty paid on 'non-moving' and 'slow-moving' inputs is legal and valid.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relying on the Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. CCB, Bangalore reported in 2002 (50) RLT 208 (T-Ban.) contended that the issue sought to be raised by the Petitioners in the appeal is squarely covered in their favour. He submitted that if at all the Tribunal wanted to take any other view, it was open only after dealing with the said Judgment; that too after distinguishing the same or by referring it to a Larger Be...

Finolex Cables Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) disallowing total modvat credit Rs. Rs. 93,544/- on the following items: 2. The ground for denial of credit on the high speed precision production lathe and milling machines is that they were used in the workshop for repair and maintenance of machinery and hence not eligible to capital goods credit. The ground on which credit has been disallowed on electrostatic water treatment unit is the reliance on the Tribunals' decision in Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CCE 4. The Tribunal has held in a series of decisions that items used for maintenance and repair in a factory are not eligible to capital goods credit. Following the ratio of these decisions I hold that credit on these two items i.e., high speed precision production lathe and milling machine, is not admissible to the appellants.5. Regarding electrostatic water treatment unit I extend capital goods credit as subsequent decision of the Tribun...

Eximious Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below I waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 5,75,556/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q and Rs. 2,000/- imposed under Rule 209 and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the appellants herein are not eligible to modvat credit during the period 01/10/1994 to 31/12/1994 as they had not filed the declaration for the inputs. Against the confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority, the appellants preferred an appeal along with application for waiver before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 17/06/2002 directed pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. As against this direction the appellants moved the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 5126 of 2002. While the petition was pending, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F...

Shv Energy Northwest India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant imported in August and September, 2000 consignments of butane which were provisionally assessed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Notice was subsequently issued to the appellant in February 2001 under Section 28 of the Act, demanding duty on the goods on the view that the value declared for the goods by the appellant of US$ 307.50 per ton in August and US$ 209 per ton in September was low and should be enhanced to $ 334 and $ 359 respectively, this being the price at which Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, imported same goods in August and October 2000. After considering the cause shown, the Additional Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the demand for duty. Hence this appeal.3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant, that the provisional assessment not having been finalised, the demand could not be issued allegi...

Krishna Fabrications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,68,780/- (already paid by the appellants on 07/08/1996) ordering confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 10,680/- seized from public transport vehicle, namely, truck found outside the factory premises of the appellants on 25/11/1995 and ordering adjustment of Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of confiscation as the goods had been released provisionally and imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- upon the appellants.2. The appellants have filed written submissions and have asked for a decision on this basis; hence I heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. The case of the department as brought out from the impugned order is that inputs valued at approximately Rs. 4.71 crores had been removed during the period 1991-92 to 1995-965 up to November, 1995 after availing credit to the job workers either without payment of duty or without the cover of 57F(3) challans and that there wa...

Shahi Containers Patwolk Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT51Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai inter alia ordering confiscation of the unmanifested goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine and imposing personal penalty on the steamer agent and the slot charter M/s . Shahi ContaineRs. 2. Although notice was issued to M/s . Patvolk, the steamer agent, for haring today none appeaRs. Hence I heard the General Manager of Shahi Containers and perused the record sand heard the Learned SDR.3. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty on M/s . Shahi Containers holding that the responsibility for filing full and correct manifest lies upon the steamer agent, also charter and the cargo forwardeRs. This is the same reason he has adopted for imposing penalty on M/s . Patvolk. However, in the face of the clear language of Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962 defining the person in charge of conveyance in relation to a vessel as the master of the vessel, I hold neither the slot charte...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard Shri Uma Shankar, learned S.D.R. for Revenue. None appeared for the respondents despite notice and adjournment granted earlier. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner has been reviewed by the Board vide order in review No. 77-R/96 dated 13.3.96. It has been pointed out by the Board that the adjudicating authority has not taken into account the following while adjudicating the case:- "(i) In Bajaj Industries Mr. Girdarilal Bajaj is the authorized signatory, his elder son and wife are partners and his other son Mr. Purushottam Bajaj is the sole proprietor of M/s. P.G. Sales. It shows that the manufacturing unit and trading unit are their family concerns and the the movements of the goods and documents are controlled form the place i.e. from the office of P.G. Sales by same set of persons. (ii) Mr. Girdarilal has stated in his statement, that M/s. P.G. Sales Corporation is sole distributor for their goods i.e Bajaj brand of welding electrodes. Even the bills and invoice c...

Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of the departmental representative, the appellant being absent and unrepresented despite notice, having filed written submission.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has classified "soft serve ice-creme" manufactured by the appellant which was dispensed Customs Act, 1962. Notice was subsequently issued to the appellant in February 2001 under Section 28 of the Act, demanding duty on the goods on the view that the value declared for the goods by the appellant of US$ 307.50 per ton in August and US$ 209 per ton in September was low and should be enhanced to $ 334 and $ 359 respectively, this being the price at which Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. imported same goods in August and October 2000. After considering the cause shown, the Additional Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the demand for duty. Hence this appeal.3. The contention of the counsel for the appella...

Suditi Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, A.C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT236Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute in this case is whether the impugned goods can be covered under ITC (HS) Code 23099001 as 'Compounded Animal Feed' which were restricted for import or under ITC (HS) Code 23099003.10 as 'Poultry Feed' which were freely importable. The Commissioner of Customs has held the impugned goods to be compounded Animal Feed and hence restricted for import. The appellants have produced a certificate from various agencies including Compound Life Stock Feed Manufacturers Association and individual manufacturers that the impugned goods are neither 'Compounded Animal Feed' nor 'Concentrate for Compounded Feed' but the same are 'Poultry Feed Supplement'. They have also cited the decision of the Apex Court in Sun Export Corporation v. C.C., Bombay - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) holding that animal feed supplements such as pre-mix of vitamin AD3 which are generally added to Animal Feed is also covered by the generic term 'Animal Feed'.2. Heard the learned S.D.R., who sup...