Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Kundan Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT338Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are availing Modvat credit on inputs common to duly-paid and fully exempt final products and are not maintaining separate accounts. They are reversing the 8% amounts as per the requirements of Rule 57CC on clearance of exempted goods.2. They were, in the proceedings initiated, required to deposit the amounts equivalent to 8% reversed under Rule 57CC which has been shown on the invoices as :- (ii) Duly at 8% under Rule 57CC. (iii) Amount paid at 8% under Rule 57CC. This impugned demand has been made under Section 11D. (a) The amounts, wherever they are depicted as Excise duty and collected, have to be deposited by the manufacturer under the provision of Section 11D. Wherever they are shown only as amount under Rule 57CC they will not be covered by the provisions of Section 11D. (b) For the above purpose, each clearance document will have to be re-checked and the amounts worked out by the original authority. While doing so, the original authority will also consider the alt...

Lloyds Metal and Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC326

a) The appellants removed certain capital goods from their factory at Dombivli on payment of duty to their other unit at Murbad. A notice was issued by the Range officers of Murbad unit alleging that the clearance effected to Murbad unit were made without reckoning 2.5% deduction as required under Rule 57S(2)(b). Therefore it was alleged that excess credit was passed on by the Dombivli unit to Murbad. Murbad unit was asked to show cause why the excess credit so availed should not denied and penalty under Rule 57U (6) and Rule 173Q be imposed. While Dombivli unit was also asked to show cause why penalty should not be imposed them under Rule 173Q. The lower authorities have confirmed the proposal in the notice. Hence the appeals. b) Rule 57R (4) provides for adjustment alteration in the amounts of credit taken on capital goods as equivalent to as shown in the duty paying documents. The Murbad assessee cannot be denied the credit equivalent to the amounts shown on duty paying documents i...

Vikram Ispat (a Unit of Grasim Industries Ltd.) Vs. State of Maharasht ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)ACC192; 2004ACJ1784; AIR2003Bom498; 2004(2)ALLMR82; 2004(2)BomCR607

ORDERShah, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the production of sponge (sic) in Village Salav in Raigad District. The petitioner holds large tracts of land for that purpose. No member of the public is allowed to enter thee areas without prior permission. In order to carry out its activities, the petitioner put to use machinery within its areas, of a variety. But in the instant case, we are concerned with only one of them i.e pay loader which seemingly is similar to a dumper with a difference that the dumper has a bucket on the back side whereas the pay loader has a bucket in front which is smaller in size and which is hydraulically operated and can pick up a fixed amount of material depending upon its capacity. It's steering system is also hydraulically operated and its turning radius is more than the ordinary transport vehicles. Major deployment of the pay loaders is stated to be in mines and mines related activities where material is picked up by pay loader and disch...

Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai Vs. Hotel Hill Top Internationa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR157; 2004(1)MhLj1009

R. M. S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard. Perused the records. The following questions arise for determination in this petition :--(i) Whether, in a case of absence of dispute about the total stoppage or malfunctioning of the meter, can the Electrical Inspector exercise the power under the Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and if so, at what stage? (ii) What is the procedure to be followed by the licensee for the recovery of the amount for the actual quantity of the units of electricity consumed by the consumer during the period when the meter, to the knowledge of the licensee, had undisputedly stopped or had been, undisputedly, malfunctioning?2. The petitioner-Corporation challenges the orders passed by the Electrical Inspector on 18-8-1999 in exercise of the power under the Section 26(6) of the said Act and the Appellate Authority on 2-2-2000 in exercise of the power under the Section 36(2) of the said Act.3. The facts relevant, for th...

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs. Security Guards Board for Grea ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR817; 2004(1)BomCR529

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This petition is filed by Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi i.e. Union of Security Guards against the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District, established under the provisions of Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and scheme framed thereunder.2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged on behalf of its members the action of the respondent in not registering the members of the petitioner union as Security Guards. Rule was granted and a detailed reply has been filed by the concerned respondents.3. Facts necessary for proper adjudication of this petition, stated briefly are that the members of the petitioner union were employed as Security Guards in certain establishment which enjoyed exemption under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from employing Security Guards only through the agency of the respo...

Vandana Vs. Shridhar Kisan Pise and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC275

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Mr. De, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned Counsel for non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Loney, APP for non-applicant No. 3.2. The applicant herein has approached this Court by this Criminal Revision Application for challenging the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Brahmapuri in Regular Criminal Case No. 30 of 1996 passed on 31.12.1999, whereunder non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 came to be acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.3. The applicant was married to non-applicant No. 1-Shridhar Kisan Pise on 1.5.1993. A son was born to the spouses on 29.2.1994 out of the said wedlock. It is the allegation of the prosecution that non-applicant No. 1 used to abuse the applicant and demand an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her for opening a poultry farm. Non-applicant No. 2-Anandrao Kisan Deole used to instigate non-applicant No. 1. As the applicant failed to bring the amoun...

Ratanmani Metals and Tubes 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 both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The common question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the appellant was eligible to take credit on the duty paid on storage tanks that it utilised in its factory under Rule 57Q by the appellant towards manufacture of pipes and tubes. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that credit was not available.The notice issued to the appellant proposed to deny the credit on the ground that storage tanks of plastics that were received by the appellant from the manufacturer which were classifiable in heading 3925.10 of the tariff were not included in the definition of capital goods contained in Rule 57Q. Adjudicating on the notice, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, that the law then stood when the credit was taken in December 1999 storage tanks were not part of the definition of the term capital goods contained in Rule 5...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Madhusudan Texturisers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT397Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri. Vimlesh Kumar, Id. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. None was present for the respondent. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner dropping the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice. The Id. JDR has submitted that the Commissioner has wrongly allowed the proforma credit to be treated as Modvat credit because the proforma credit was non operative from 20-5-94 as per Notification 24/94. His contention is that the assessee was not entitled to transfer the proforma credit on 6-6-1994 to Modvat credit as per the Notification.2. The Commissioner has referred to the CBEC Circular No.267/69/95-CX.8, dated 23-6-95 with regard to condonation of delay in filing their declaration under Rule 57G (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner has, therefore, condoned the delay of about 16 days in filing the declaration as per directions of the board and allowed the proforma credit to be treated as Modvat credit...

imp Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant availed credit in April 2001 under Rule 57AE on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by manufacturer of the inputs in February 2001. The manufacturer had not paid duty on the goods earlier on his view that the goods were exempted in terms of notification 49/94. Subsequently the manufacturer, it appears, voluntarily paid the duty on his understanding that the exemption contained in the notification would not apply. The department objected to applicant taking the credit on the ground that there was no provision in law for this purpose; Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57AE, as it then stood, provided for taking credit on the basis of supplementary invoices issued only when the provisional assessment was finalised or on account of additional amounts payable by the manufacturer on account of escalation in the prices. The Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the demand. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order.2. The counsel for the applicant contends that by a...

Videocon International and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC687Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. These five appeals involve a common issue. The appellants manufactured Colour T.V. sets some of which were exported under the advance licence scheme. They had also taken credit on input duty which they have reversed at the instance of the customs authorities before export of Colour T.V. sets was allowed. The present appeals seek refund of the credits which have been reversed on the ground that such credits were rightly taken under the excise law which does not require any reversal. The lower authorities have rejected the refund claims.2. Shri T. Vishwanathan, the learned advocate for the appellants fairly concedes that against the exports made by the appellants, duty benefit has been taken under the customs notification No. 203/92 CUS dated 19.5.1992. He also concedes that Clause v(a) of the said notification prescribes a condition that no input duty credit should be taken while availing customs duty exemption. It is, however, his case that this requirement is und...