Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Bhatapara Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This is an application for grant of stay from implementing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and to dispense with the pre-deposit order and its recovery.2. The appellant's unit is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, non-alloy steel hot re-rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the products manufactured by the appellant were governed by Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including the financial year 1999-2000.3. On scrutiny of RT 12 Returns for the period June 1999 to November 1999 and December 1999 to March 2000, it is observed that the appellant had filed declaration dated 17.02.98 of all parameters with the Commissioner Central Excise, Nagpur, as required under Rule 3 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.4. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur, vide Order-in-Original dated 31.0...

Camteck Labs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC107

1. a) The Appellants manufacture medical requisites / instruments for humans. The issue in this appeal, relates to classification and duty on intermediate plastic articles (Pouches / bags), arising in the course A manufacturing of "Life saving Equipments" viz., Urocom. Urocom-CVC and Urocom Legbag sets, which were classified and approved by the Assistant Collector under S.H. No. 9018.00 of C.E.T.A 1985 and were granted full exemption from duty under item No. 28 of Notificaiton No. 339/86 - CE (as amended) being 'Ostomy Products'. These intermediate pouches / bags of plastic (herein after referred to as PPVC for brevity), which were in crude and unfinished form, were manufactured from plastic sheets i.e. plastic goods falling under heading No. 39.20 as obtained from Bhor Industries. In such PPVC, a plastic inlet tube and a catheter outlet tube of Plastic material, with a valve arrangement was thereafter placed. Such PPVC pouch with tubes were sealed to make them an air-tight leak proof...

L.E. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT409Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Dispute in the present appeal relates to the correct classification of small pieces of Glass Rings imported by the appellant to be used in manufacture of miniature bulbs. Whereas the appellant has claimed the classification under Heading 8546.10 of the Customs Tariff as Electrical Insulators, the authorities below have held that the goods are properly classifiable under Heading 7020.00, as articles of glass.2. The appellant has made prayer to decide the matter on the basis of She records. Accordingly, we have heard Shri. R.K. Chandan. ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue.3. After going through the impugned order, we find that the Asst.Commissioner of Customs has held that the glass rings imported by the appellant have to undergo further process of manufacture before they function as electrical insulator. Heading 85.46 of the Customs Tariff covers electrical insulators and to qualify under the said heading, the goods should be capable of being identified as insulators and capable of be...

Rhino Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether charges towards design, fabrication, erection, testing and technical supervision at the buyers' site for erection of the plant are includible in the various components and parts being cleared by the appellants for further use at site.2. As per facts on record, the appellants were placed purchase orders by their buyers for supply of equipment, parts/components of mould handling plant along with installation and commissioning of the plant at site. The appellants cleared various components on payment of duty thereon. However, the appellants' jurisdictional Central Excise authorities entertained a view that the charges received by the appellants towards design, fabrication and erection and testing of the goods at site would form part of the assessable value of the goods cleared from the appellants' factory. For the said purposes, number of Show Cause Notices covering the period November, 1998 to September, 2000 were issued...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is as to whether the Modvat credit would be available to the loss of inputs on account of evaporation of moisture contained therein or not.2. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Chapter 25 of CETA, 1985 and availing the benefit of Modvat credit on various inputs including Phospho Gypsum. On account of its vary nature, the said input either loses moisture due to evaporation or absorb the same depending upon the atmospheric condition. The revenue's case is that since there was loss of weight on account of evaporation, from the time the goods were received in the respondent's factory to the time of their utilization in the manufacture of final products, duty paid by the respondents on such loss cannot be allowed as Modvat credit, inasmuch as the weight of the Gypsum attributable to the loss has not been actually used in the manufacture of final products. Referral Bench took note of th...

Smt. Shailadevi Damodarprasad Bhadani and ors. Vs. Shri Harishchandra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR436

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Admit. By consent of the parties, Appeal from Order taken up on Board and heard finally.The order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dated 5.10.2004 is challenged in the present Appeal from Order. The trial Court has dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code by the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 199 of 2004. 2. The facts involved in the present appeal are as follows: The appellants, who are the Bhadani family members, claim that their predecessor one Jhariram Bhadani purchased property in Village Panchpakhadi, Thane bearing Survey No. 427 to 435 and 485 admeasuring about 68 acres. This purchase was made in the year 1950. It appears that suit No. 221 of 1960 was filed by one branch of Bhadani family against another. It appears that the joint family properties were divided amongst the parties to the suit and consent terms were filed before the Court on 19.3.1971...

Shri Deepak Shankar Patil Vs. Shri A.N. Roy,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj1166

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') is detained by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under an order of detention dated 30 April issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ('the said Act' for short), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In this petition, the detenue has challenged the said order of detention.2. The order of detention is based on one C.R. being C.R.20 of 2004 and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' recorded on 16 March 2004 and 19 March 2004.3. Shri Tripathi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on three grounds. He firstly contended that the grounds of detention do not indicate that the detenu's activities have posed a threat to the maintenance of public order. He submitted that C.R.12 of 2004 r...

Maharashtra Engineering Plastic and General Kamgar Union Vs. Little Ki ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR238; 2005(4)BomCR429; (2005)IILLJ555Bom; 2005(2)MhLj652

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioners had filed a complaint being Complaint No. 564 of 1998. The case of the complainant was that the respondents were employers. As the workman engaged by the employer were not being given benefits which they were entitled to under various Labour Legislatures such as benefits of E.S.I.C., Insurance and other benefits and some other benefits as set out in the plaint, the workman approached Shri. Chandrakant Saya and Shri. Harish Sawala, the Respondent partners in order to redress their genuine grievance on several occasions. As the workman found that their genuine grievances are not being settled, they enrolled themselves with the Petitioner Union. The Union by its letter of 4.9.1998 raised a complaint with the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner against the employers and requested that their genuine grievance be redressed. It is also set out that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of Respondent No. 1. They only brought to the notice of the e...

The Municipal Corporation, Vs. State Bank of India,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR319

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The present first appeal impugns the Judgment of the Small Causes Court in the appeal filed by the First Respondent Bank under section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Appellant No.1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are its officers. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows. 2. The respondents No.2 to 5 i.e. Original Respondents No.4 to 7 are the owners of the building bearing No.A Ward No.1315(3) Street No.158, Maharshi Karve Road, Bombay 400 020. The said building consists of Ground and six upper floors. Respondent No.1 which is State Bank of India occupies one of the flats on the ground floor of the building as a tenant of respondent Nos.2 to 5. The bank came into possession of the flat on 1st April, 1980 when respondent Nos. 2 to 5 let out the flat to the respondent No.1 bank for a term of 9 1/2 years on payment of Rs.11,970/- per month. The Bank agreed to pay municipal taxes besides mo...

Mukund Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Indian Companies Act, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR25(Bom); III(2005)BC95; 2005(2)BomCR21

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. By an award dated 27th June, 1994 made under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the learned arbitrator held that on account of breach of contract the appellant is liable to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.1,26,67,529.10 together with costs quantified at Rs,75,600/-. The appellant challenged the said award by filing an arbitration petition No. 177 of 1994. The learned Single Judge while upholding the award reduced the quantum from Rs.1,26,67,529.10 to Rs.71,31,954.40 and passed a decree in favour of the respondent and against the appellant in terms of the modified award. Challenging the said decree, the appellant has filed the present appeal.2. The facts relevant for this appeal are that pursuant to a tender enquiry floated by the respondent on 7/11/1989 for design, fabrication and commissioning of Propane-de Asphalting heater (PDA heater) at Mahul, Mumbai, the appellant in association with Engineering India Ltd. (EIL), New Delhi submitted its price bid o...