Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Kellogg India Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in- original whereby their claim for modvat credit has been denied.3. I note that the claim for credit of Rs. 18,653/- was denied on the ground that the same was taken on the basis of original copy of invoice, which is invalid. The appellants made an attempt to demonstrate, by referring to the correspondence with the courier, through whom the supplier had despatched the invoice to say that the duplicate was lost during transportation. This claim is without any merits. The invoice has to accompany the goods. In case the same is despatched separately then its loss cannot be a loss in transportation.Therefore, I hold that the rejection of claim on this ground was justified.4. So far as the rejection of claim of credit of Rs. 55,640/- on compressors is concerned, it is pleaded that the compressor in question is not of the ineligible type. It is claimed to be used for blowing air in the pouches. Similarly, as regards the credit ...

Sharad Kumar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT341Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The miscellaneous application has been filed under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 seeking direction for implementing CEGAT's Order No. CI/3727/01/WZB/2001 dated 23.11.2001.Both sides confirm that the said order dated 23.11.2001 has not yet been implemented.2. It is the submission of the application that in pursuance of the Tribunal's Order dated 23.11.2001, the department has to release 800 tolas of gold to the appellants by implementing the said order. Through the miscellanous application, the appellants are seeking directions from the Tribunal for release of gold alongwith interest on prevailing market price of gold.3. I find that Rule 41 of the CEGAT (now CESTAT) (Procedure) Rules, 1982 reads as under : "The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice." Rule 41 is a part of the procedural rules...

Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application is filed under Section 129E of the Customs Act seeking waiver of predeposit of duty and stay of recovery thereof confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Division-V, Vadodara wherein the said authority ordered the appellant to pay Customs duty amounting to Rs. 12,43,033/- the appellants were a 100% EOU. They imported certain capital goods/computers and parts thereof availing of benefit of duty free exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dated 9.2.1981 to be used in the manufacture of development of computer software. They however could not fulfill the export obligation and requested the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce to permit them to de-bond the unit prematurely. Such permission was granted by the said Ministry subject to fulfillment of Central Excise formalities. The Deputy Com...

Tido Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The facts in brief are that, the appellants imported certain quantities of P.U. Foam Sheets on payment of import duty thereon (including CV duty of which Modvat credit is claimed) and sent the same directly to the job workers. In terms of provisions contained in Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the appellants were required to bring the said material to their factory and thereafter, after following the laid down procedure they could have removed the said material to their job workers. Admittedly no such procedure was followed and the appellants took credit of CV duty, when the material converted by the job worker was received in the appellant's factory. It was also noticed that the appellants had not maintained any authenticated or private record for the said removal of the goods. The lower authorities accordingly denied the credit. Hence the appeal to the Tribunal.4. In the appeal main thrust has been laid on the ground that there is no, dispute that the input material...

Mather and Platt (i) Lt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT287Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question of classification of parts of machinery/equipment falling under chapter heading 84 and 85 the Central Excise Tariff Act has been a subject matter of considerable debate and may judicial pronouncements. Basic principles of classification enunciated in section note 2 of Section XVI of CETA should alone be the criteria for determining the classification of such goods. "2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter 84 and to Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machines (not being parts of the articles of heading No. 84.84, 85.44, 85.45, 85.46 or 85.47) are to be classified according to the following rules (a) parts which are goods included in any of the headings of chapter 84 or chapter 85 (other than heading Nos. 84.09, 84.31, 84.48, 84.66, 84.73, 84.85, 85.03, 85.22, 85.29, 85.38 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective heading. (b) Other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of m...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Asha Handi Crafts

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In terms of the said order, duty demand of Rs.86,348/- confirmed against the respondents, redemption fine and penalties imposed, as also the interest demanded were set aside. The revenue's appeal challenges the findings arrived by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Since only one appeal has been filed the same is being treated as appeal only against the main respondent viz. the manufacturer.Consequently the relief granted to the other parties, who were appellants before Commissioner (Appeals) remain unchallenged and have become final.3. Heard the Ld. DR. Respondents are not present despite notice nor any cross objection is on record.4. This is a case of alleged shortage of certain varieties of finished goods (casseroles) in the RGI record which was revealed during the stock verification. Also an excess stock of certain other varieties was also noticed during the said verifica...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Perfect Tools, S.N. Bhogale,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A Show Cause Notice was issued consequent to enquiries launched, when it was noticed that M/s Perfect Tools and M/s Precission Press Tools situated at Ghatkopar Industrial Estate, Mumbai had not filed any declaration under Notification No. 9/88. M/s Perfect Tools is a proprietary concern of Shri Sakharam Narayan Bhogale, who also held another proprietary concern in the name and style of M/s Bhogale Industries at MIDC, Nasik. There was no separate registration of M/s Precision Press Tools, either with the Municipal or Industries Department of the State Government and based on the enquiries made, the value of the goods cleared in the name of M/s Perfect Tools and M/s Precision Press Tools, M/s Bhogale Industries are required to be clubbed and be liable for payment for the purposes of determining the eligibility to avail Notification 175/86-CE on the allegation made that the unit suppressed the existence of the units only for the purpose of bifurcating with the intention to remain in ...

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals, one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner (A).2. M/s. Hawkins Cookers Ltd., the appellant manufacture Pressure Cookers. They also manufacture parts of pressure cooker, which are consumed captively and are cleared for home consumption as well. Parts of pressure cookers were exempt/from payment of excise duty vide Notification No., 102/88 dated 1.3.1988. The exemption was withdrawn by Notification No. 181/88 dt. 13.5.1988. However, the said exemption from duty was restored by another Notification No. 250/88 dated 1.9.88. The appellants paid duty on the parts of Pressure Cookers, which were caplively consumed in the manufacture of pressure cookers, even when such parts were exempt from payment of Central Excise duty after 1.9.1988 upto 20.9.1988. The appellants claimed refund of such duty paid on the plea that there was no increase in the price of pressure cookers when they paid duty on the parts, which establis...

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Larsen and Tou ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR315; 2004(2)ARBLR490(Bom); 2004(5)BomCR186; 2004(3)MhLj285

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the Order passed by the Second Extra Joint District Judge Pune in Misc. Civil Application No. 702 of 2001 dated 10/7/2002 whereby the application made by the Petitioner raising a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the Misc. Civil Application in the Pune Court was rejected.2. Brief facts are as under:-3. Petitioner is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1996 by virtue of its share capital being held solely and exclusively by the State Government. Petitioner - Company has been established with the sole objective of executing road development projects in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 is a Public Limited Company with whom the petitioner had entered into a contract for constructing a segment of the Mumbai-Pune Expressway being Segment 'C' from Kusgaon to Ozarde. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a written contract on 27/1/1998. Clause 5(1)(b) of the said contract whic...

Jasmine Vipul Bhatia Alias Jasmine Jayant Bhatia, Vs. the State of Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)DMC162; 2004(3)MhLj262

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Petitioner 1 is the original complainant in case No. 285/P/96 (C.R. 322/95) pending before the Metropolitan Magistrates 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai. She was married to petitioner 2 Vipul Narottam Bhatia on 23rd January, 1995. Petitioner 3 Purnima Narottam Bhatia is the sister of petitioner 2 and petitioner 4 Narottam Haridas Bhatia is the father of petitioner 2.2. Due to difference of opinion petitioner : could not pull on with her husband. They started residing separately from 14th February, 1995. On 6th February, 1995 petitioner 1 had filed a complaint with Pant Nagar Police Station against rest of the petitioners inter alia under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was registered as C.R. No. 322/95.3. Admittedly on 26th November, 1996, the marriage between petitioner 1 and petitioner 2 was dissolved by consent decree of divorce. Thereafter petitioner 1 got re-married and she is now staying abroad.4. In view of the amicable settlement o...