Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Faizan Texturising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 29,41,931/- arises out of order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).The demand stands confirmed as a result of denial of the benefit of the exemption in terms of notification 13/98-CE dated 2.6.1998 to the applicants herein, who are a 100% export oriented unit manufacturing texturised yarn, on the ground that the clearances made by them to DTA were in terms of para 9.10(b) of the Exim Policy 1997-2002 while the notification, the benefit of which was claimed by them, covered only clearances in DTA under and in accordance with the provisions of para 9.9 or para 9.20 of the Exim. Policy. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the clearances are in terms of para 9.9 and 9(b), and para 9.10(b) is only a deeming provision stating 'supplies effected in DTA against payment from the Exchange Earners Foreign Currency Account of the buyer in the DTA' shall be conducted towards fulfilment of NEEP/EP. His next submiss...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.H. Founders and Engineers and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT334Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has said that the credit could be taken under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on sand mix muller, a machine which is used for preparing sand moulds.2. The credit had been denied by the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that sand moulds being exempted from duty, the capital goods would not be considered to have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished excisable goods. It is the requirement of Rule 57Q that for credit to be taken capital goods must be used in the manufacture of dutiable finished goods. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57R contains an exception to this rule. It provides that credit cannot be denied on the ground that exempted or nil rated intermediate product come into existence during the course of manufacture of final product and it is this rule that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon.3. In my view, he has wrongly relied upon this rule. Sand mix muller is used only to make t...

Spica Elastic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT323Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant received doubled yarn from its manufacturer. At the relevant time doubled yarn made out of single yarn was exempted from duty. The appellant took credit of the duty paid on the single yarn used for manufacture of doubled yarn. This was objected to by issue of notice and the Deputy Commissioner passed orders denying the credit and imposing a penalty on the appellant. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the denial of the credit but reduced the penalty.Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented but requests decision on the basis of written submission.3. The contention in this submission is that the doubled yarn is an intermediate product and therefore by application of Rule 57D(2) the credit cannot be denied.4. I do not find it possible to agree. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57D would apply where any intermediate goods come into existence during the course of manufacture of the final product. The appellant's final product is narrow woven fabrics. I...

Hoechst Schering Agrevo Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT289Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of two separate orders involving an identical issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Hoechst Schering AgrEvo Ltd. and M/s. Meghmani Organics Ltd. manufacture pesticides technical grade as well as formulations and clear the same on payment of duty at the rate applicable to goods falling under sub-heading 3808,10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, which reads as under:- "Insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth regulators, disinfectants and similar products, put up in forms or packings for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles, and flypapers)." 3. According to the department, the above heading covered only products which are put up for retail sale or as preparation/article and since the goods manufactured by the two appellants above mentioned had not been put up in forms or packing for retai...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Fire Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT341Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein, who are registered for the manufacture of textile hose pipes falling under chapter heading 59.07 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, cleared part of their products to one M/s. Fibrotex who carried out rubber lining on the hose pipes received from the respondents on job work basis and then cleared the same directly to various customers of the respondents under the respondents' direction and at the respondents' sale price, on payment of duty. The respondents were also availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986. The department proposed to club the clearances of the respondents and M/s. Fibrotex for the purpose of calculating the exemption limit under the notification and on this basis four show cause notices were issued covering the period from April 1991 to March 1993, proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs. 1,82,302.72. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the show cause notices vide order-in-original dated 1-6-...

Shri Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar and Shakeel Ahmed Farooqui Vs. Ultra Dryt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR601; 2004(2)BomCR185; 2004(2)MhLj378

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing an final disposal.2. A complaint was instituted by the Petitioners under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. On 22nd June 2001 the complaint was allowed by the Industrial Court at Thane in so far as items 5 and 9 were concerned. The order of the Industrial Court was confirmed by this Court and it is an admitted position that the Petition which was filed by the Respondents to challenge the order of the Industrial Court came to be dismissed. While allowing the complaint under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV, the Industrial Court issued the following directions:'It is held that the respondents committed unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. Respondents shall cease and desist from committing such unfair labour prac...

The Immigrants Ideal Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR147; 2004(2)BomCR597; 2004(1)MhLj910

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The question which arises for consideration before the Court in these proceedings under Article 227 is whether a Court whose jurisdiction is questioned under the provisions of Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ceases to have jurisdiction to allow an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.3. The First and Second Respondents instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes in May 2002 for a permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners and the Fourth Respondent from dispossessing them from the premises of an open godown admeasuring 12 feet x 65 feet situated at 38/B, S.V. Road, Mumbai 400 058 and from interfering with their possession or from obstructing their ingress and ingress without due process of law. According to the First and Second Respondents (whom it would be convenie...

Chandumal S/O Jamnumal Kukreja and ors. Vs. Gyarsilal S/O Ramjilal Agr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR478; 2004(1)MhLj577

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Revision is preferred by the defendants against the judgment and order dated 12-9-2001 passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Nagpur, decreeing the respondent's suit for recovery of possession.2. The respondent obtained permission for terminating the tenancy of the revision applicants under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the C. P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. The permission proceedings were contested upto the Supreme Court. The order granting permission to terminate the tenancy of the revision applicants was upheld. Thereupon, the respondent issued a notice for termination of the tenancy on 16.2.1988. Since it was not complied with, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 2401 of 1989 under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The only question raised on behalf of the applicants is whether the suit was tenable against the applicant No. 2 Nandulal who was described as a trespasser claiming through the tenant u...

Somnath S/O Eknath Yawalkar Vs. Narhar S/O Ganpatrao Malkare and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj1117

A.B. Naik, J. 1. Learned Advocates for petitioner; so also the respondents are absent.2. Perused the order dated 10-7-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, S. D. Osmanabad by which the learned Civil Judge has allowed the restoration by exercising his power under 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and restored possession to the respondent. It is not disputed that the decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal i.e. Second Appeal No. 463/1993, after the decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants have lost the possession during pendency of appeal; but in appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Osmanabad, the decree was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, which came to be confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal. If the decree by which the plaintiff obtained possession is reversed by the appellate Court, the plaintiff is not entitled to remain in possession. Defendant then gets a right of restitution by taking recourse ...

Pravinkumar R. Salian Vs. Chief Minister and Minister of Co-operation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR48; 2004(2)BomCR195; 2004(2)MhLj12

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 to 6, 14 and 15. None present for the remaining respondents, though served. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 6th August, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2 and the order and notice dated 7th August, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 3 on two counts. Firstly that, the respondent No. 2 was entitled neither under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', nor under any of the provisions of the said Act or Rules framed thereunder to pass such an order nor to give directions which were given thereunder, and likewise the respondent No. 3 could not have issued the order and notice dated 7th August, 2002 either under any of the statutory provisions or even under the bye-laws of the society. Secondly that, the action on the part of the respondent No. 3 is clearly mala fide inasmuch as that the same is...