Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Maniyar Plast Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 73,340/- and penalty of equal amount covering the period March 1998 to May 1998, we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and hence to proceed to do so after waiver of pre-deposit the demand confirmation is for the reason that the benefit of Notification No. 4/97 is not available to the appellants, who are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Moulded Furniture on the ground that the conditions in the notification relating to non-availment of modvat credit on inputs has been contravened by the appellants, as they were not able to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim regarding non-availment of credit by them on the inputs in question.2. On hearing both sides, we note that the matter commenced from the issue of show cause notice proposing classification of "Ladies Ladder" under chapter heading 39.26 as against the appellants' claim fo...

Solaris Bio-chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT216Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 3,75,95,902/- along with interest on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to credit of the above amount as they are not satisfied the conditions laid down in Rule 8 (2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, after their amalgamation with Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. (manufacturer of Citric Acid) and English Indian Clay Ltd.; he has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the appellants.2. We have heard both sides. Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rule reads as under: (1) If a manufacturer of final products shifts his factory to another site of the factory is transferred on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the factory the, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the Cenvat Credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated factory. (2) The transfer of the Cenvat Credit under Sub-rule (1) shall be al...

Jindal Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Modvat credit of Rs.33,41,519/- has been disallowed and penalty of Rs.16,20,000/- imposed by the authorities below. Out of the total demand, Rs.31,27,674/- has been disallowed on the ground that a) Bills of Entry on which credit was availed were not the name of the appellants, but in the name of their office situated at New Delhi. b) the appellants received part consignment out of the quantity mentioned in the B/E and (c) the triplicate copy of the bill of entry not produced for verification.Rs.1,67,554 represents modvat credit disallowed on the ground that it was availed on the final product while credit was admissible only on inputs. Rs.46,291/- represents modvat credit disallowed on a bill of entry which did not contain customs declaration on its reverse which was the mandatory requirement as confirmation of payment of CVD.2. We have heard both sides. In the light of the Tribunal's order in the case of Larsen & Toubre Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhubaneshwar 1994 (72) ELT 948 and Bhor Ind...

Siddharth Warp N. Draw Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT254Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The air-mingled yarn was not excisable prior to March 99. By virtue of introduction of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 54 with effect from 01/03/99, the same was held classifiable under heading 54.02. Demand of duty for the period Jan 99 to March 99 was raised against the appellant and confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that demand prior to introduction of the chapter note was not valid and hence reduced the same to the clearances made in March 99.3 The applicant's grievance is that a part of the yarn which was cleared by them during March was in fact manufactured prior to 01/03/99, as would be evident from the opening stocks reflected in their records. The appellant's contention is that out of the total 5324.120 Kgs of yam, 4052.865 Kgs was manufactured prior to March 99, when the goods in ...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Sanghi Organisation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai VII.2. The issue pertains to whether or not value of bought out items should be added to the assessable value of a product, i.e. Acetylene Gas Generator. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) dealt with the appeal before him on two distinct aspects. He ruled that the show cause notice proposes to add the value of bought out items to Acetylene Gas Generator at the time of removal of the said goods, whereas the order-in-original says "the assessee had manufactured Acetylene plant at the site of the customers by assembling the Acetylene Gas generator along with the bought out items". The Commissioner (Appeals) holds that the lower authority traversed beyond the show cause notice. He further observes that the bought out items were supplied at the plant directly.On merits he observes that the bought out items were supplied along with the manufactured goods, in which event the value of such bought ou...

Standard Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty, we proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, as the issue lies in a narrow compass, It is seen that the demand of duty was dropped by the Assistant Commissioner in original adjudication proceedings. The revenue filed an appeal against the order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who reversed the order of the original adjudicating authority. The appellant's grievance is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has fixed only one date of hearing for which no notice was received by them on account of their factory having been closed and as such, no appearance could be caused before the appellate authority.2. Ld. Advocate also submits that they are not aware of passing of the order-in-original by the adjudicating authority for the same reason. As seen from para 7 of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, he submits, that the appellate authority has agreed with him in principle that the ratio of Sup...

Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT149Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 28,63,205/- and penalty of equal amount under Section 76 & 78 of Finance Act and Rs. 500/-under Section 75A and Rs. 24,000/- under Section 77 and penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on the Manager (Excise & Customs) of the first applicant company arise out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Dy. Commissioner has confirmed the service tax liability for the services rendered by IPCL in two separate agreements, one for training and one for commissioning and erection provided by the applicant company. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the applicants filed an appeal for waiver. Vide order dated 24/04/04, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to pre-deposit the entire service tax within two weeks from the receipt of the order and report compliance thereafter failing which, the appeals would be dismissed.2. We heard both sides. We find that prima facie the entire demand cannot be recovered because it is exce...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raymond Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. At the out set, it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondent that the assessee has settled dues under the provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rulses, 1998 and they contend that the Revenue's appeal is also got covered by such settlement. He has also drawn our attention to the circular dated 8/12/98, which is reproduced here below: "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - settlement of amount involved in Deptt's appeals. The constitutional validity of the MVS Scheme was recently challenged in a Public Interest Litigation in Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the provisions of the scheme except the provisions relating to Departmental appeals vide proviso to Section, 92 which denies the benefits of settlement for the amount of duties involved in such appeals under the KVS Scheme. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that this proviso cannot be sustained and in their view, no distinction should be made whether the assessee is in appeal or the...

Dattatraya Gopalrao Borkute (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR151

Kamdar S.U., J.1. By the present two writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking a relief that the land which has been acquired for the purpose of alignment of ring road in the city of Nagpur be released under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short).Brief facts of the case are as under.The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 576 of 2004 is the owner of Survey No. 58/1-G/4, situated at Somalwadi, Nagpur, whereas petitioners in Writ Petition No. 863 of 2004 are the owners of Survey No. 58/1 GH, 58/5, situated at Somalwadi, Nagpur.3. On 10-10-1988, notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act, for public purpose of providing alignment of ring road for the city of Nagpur. Petitioners raised objection to the said acquisition by filing their objection under Section 5A of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Officer, Collector Office, Nagpur. They further filed additional objections to the said acquisition proceeding. Ultimately, an award came to be pa...

Sahebrao Daulatrao Nimbhorkar and ors. Vs. Municipal Council Through I ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR246; 2005(2)BomCR158

Kamdar S.U., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.2. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking enforcement of the pay-scale recommended by the Vth pay commission. The respondent No. 1 has by resolution dated 13th September, 2000 adopted recommendation of Vth pay commission and has passed a resolution that the payment of Vth pay commission will be made to the municipal employees with effect from 1-1-1996. Pursuant thereto, on 26th June, 2003 the Collector has passed an order under Section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act granting approval to make the revised pay-scale payable in accordance with the Vth pay commission recommendations to the municipal employees. After a period of about three years from the date of passing of resolution on 18th September, 2003 the Municipal Council has suspended the earlier resolution and refused to comply with the same by paying pay-scale to its employees in accordance with the recommendations of the Vth pay commission. T...