Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Sarla Polyester Limites and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi, who has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 44,89,471/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount on M/s. Sarla Polyester Ltd. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 44,89,000/- on its Director. The demand consists of two parts:- [1] Demand of Rs. 15,93,013/- has been confirmed on DTA clearances made by the manufacturing unit which is a 100% EOU on clearances between 16.9.99 and February 2002 on the basis of 50% of the aggregate of duties of customs as per Notification No. 2/95-CE dt. 4.1.1995. [2] Demand of Rs. 28,96,358/- has been confirmed as a result of classification of yarn manufactured and cleared during the period March 2001 to February 2002 under Central Excise Tariff subheading 5402.6 (Nylon Yarn) and 5402.62 (Polyester Yarn) as against the manufacturers claim for classification of the covered yarn under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 5606.00.2. We have heard bo...

Sarveshwar Texturisers and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Naresh Thacker, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and he submitted that the issue relates to availment of benefit of Notification 8/97. He submitted that in appeal No.E-2847/03, there is a duty demand of Rs. 57,34,558/-and equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed and a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs has been imposed on Shri. Dhirubhai Nagjibhai Patel, partner of the appellant. In appeal No. E/2848/03 there is a duty demand of Rs. 74,80,057/- and an equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed under Rule 25(d) of Central Excise Rules, 2001. A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs has been imposed on Shri. Dhirubhai Nagjibhai Patel, partner of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is 100% EOU and the depositing of duty and penalty will cause undue hardship to the appellants as they are facing acute financial hardship and the appellants have got good prima facie case on facts and law. He, therefore, submitted that pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be dispensed with.2....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. K.S.H. International Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant appeal is filed by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondents are the manufacturers of paper insulated copper/aluminium strips falling under heading No. 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Copper bars/rods, aluminium bars/rods and insulating craft paper are the inputs. The respondents undertake partial production on job work basis on behalf of their principal manufacturers. While the principal manufacturers send their main material namely copper/aluminium to the respondents for job work, the craft paper used by the respondents for such manufacture is out of their own stock, on which modvat credit has been taken. The despatch of finished goods to the principal manufacturer being under job work, in terms of notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986, no duty is being paid by the respondents on such clearance of finished goods. The credit of duty paid was taken on inputs (craft paper) used in t...

Mazda Industrial Chemical Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT45Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for stay of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). No duty is confirmed, no demand received hence no application for waiver of pre-deposit.2. The facts are that the appellants were manufacturer of organic surface active agents falling under chapter heading 34 of CETA. They also manufacture Slurry, falling under the same chapter consume it captively determining the value of the product on cost construction method and pay Central Excise duty accordingly. A dispute arose whether the value determined is correct or not. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case and dropped proceedings accepting the value as determined by the appellants.3. The Department felt agreived by this order went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal by directing the Assistant Director (cost) to conduct a special audit for the period December 1988 to March 1991 and to arrive at the appropriate assessable value of Naphtha and slurry which ...

W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Bank of

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC221

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants W.S. Industries (India) Ltd./original defendant No. 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Mumbai on Exhibit Nos. 57, 63, 65, 66, 69, 72, 83, 85 and 96 in Original Application No. 3625/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application/ prayer of these defendants for discharging them and directed that the original application would proceed against all the defendants.Present respondent No. 1, Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) had filed original application against the present respondent No. 2 namely Lloyds Finance Ltd., who were arraigned as defendant No. 1 to the original application. The present appellants were impleaded as party defendant No. 2 in the original application.The case of the applicant Bank in the original application is that Lloyds Finance Ltd. had approached them for seeking the financial assistance def...

Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR562; 2004(2)MhLj1017; [2004]135STC25(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Both these petitions raise common questions of law and hence both these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In these petitions Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Tax on the Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2002 is challenged in so far as it purports to levy entry tax on entry of furnace oil and low sulphur waxy residue oil into any local area in the State of Maharashtra for consumption, use or sale therein. Although the legislative competence of the State to levy entry tax has been raised in the petition, the counsel for the petitioners have not pressed that ground at the final hearing of the petition and have restricted their challenge based on violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301, 304 and 286 of the Constitution of India.3. Both the petitioners manufacture electricity and for that purpose have set up their power plants in the State of Maharashtra. Eurotex Industries use furnace oil for their captive power pla...

Ramavatar Surajmal Modi Vs. Mulchand Surajmal Modi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom212; 2004(1)ALLMR822; 2004(2)MhLj1

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Twin issues arise in this appeal. The first issue is whether Order 39, Rule 11(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Bombay Amendment) introduced in Maharashtra by Notification dated 5th September 1983 is mandatory or directory. The other issue is if the said provision is held to be directory, whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in exercise of discretion in declining to strike off the defence of the defendant.2. The aforesaid issues arise in the circumstances which we may briefly indicate. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in Suit No. 542/1996. The parties are real brothers. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the subject flat and has prayed for the possession of that flat from the defendant. In the notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff being notice of motion No. 2440/1996, the Court Receiver was appointed vide order dated 5th March 1998 by consent of the parties in respect of the subject flat. By the said order ...

Dr. Bhaga Gujasing Pawar Vs. Sou. Shrilekha Sitaram Gavit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR371; 2004(3)MhLj977

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. The appellant - original plaintiff is challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, dated 9th July 2001 whereby it held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as filed by the plaintiff - appellant herein. The trial Court, therefore, directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation to the appropriate authority having jurisdiction under the Bombay Rent Act.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal from order are as under:The plaintiff filed the suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik being Special Civil Suit No. 216 of 1995 praying for possession of the suit premises from defendant No. 1 and for damages and mesne profit. The case of the appellant - original plaintiff was that he and respondent No. 2 - original defendant No. 2 were friends...

Sudhir M. Vora Vs. Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ2278

Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed for direction to the respondent No. 1 to take suitable action against respondents No. 2 and his associates in respect of the subject matter stated in the complaint of the petitioner dated 22.11,2000.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a practising Chartered Accountant. He came in acquaintance with one K.A. Rashid and Smt. Sitabai Govind Joshi. The petitioner facilitated the said persons to conclude some transaction regarding land. However, later on said K.A. Rashid started blaming the petitioner for the said deal and called upon the petitioner to pay him Rs. 4.50 lakhs. As the petitioner denied his liability to pay that amount, the petitioner was threatened by the said K.A. Rashid and his wife that they would take the assistance of local police officers. The petitioner asserts that the petitioner was picked up from his office at 10.45 a.m. on 14.11.2000 by plain clothes police constables of th...

Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(93)ECC418; 2004(165)ELT511(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj412

J.F. Devadhar, J.1. The issue raised in this petition is whether the spring plates imported by the Petitioners are classifiable under Heading 73.20 of the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue, or under Heading 8414.19 of the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by the Petitioners.2. The Petitioners inter alia manufacture air and gas compressors over 7.5 H.P. for use in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment and other air compressors for use in pneumatic operations ('said compressors' for short). For manufacture of the said compressors, the Petitioners require variety of 'spring plates'. These spring plates are not manufactured in India and are required to be imported. According to the Petitioners, these spring plates are not springs, as envisaged in common parlance. They are not available off the shelf in the market and they do not have a general use. These spring plates are manufactured out of high carbon steel sheets and are configured with an accurate profile over a laser cu...