Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

New Kishan Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the order impugned, has considered the appellants' request of eligibility of capital goods credit (i) on scrap of iron and steel obtained from imported ship (ii) rerollable scrap obtained from imported ship, (iii) special quality weight CIGM balls (iv) Balls (unmachined casting & cast articles of irons (v) Hyper steel casting grinding media and (vi) A.C. sheets & accessories Newkor under Rule 57Q under the claim that brought as described that capital goods would be eligible irrespective of classification and if credit was not eligible under Rule 57Q, the same should be allowed under Rule 57A, and after considering the detailed submissions, he has concluded relying on the case of M/s Surya Roshani Limited 2001 (128) ELT 293 that claims made under Rule 57Q cannot be admitted if the item is found as eligible input covered by Rule 57A, even if the appellants could not have restricted their cause of action in this regard by making alternate plea ...

Y.N. Shah, A.K. Thirani, Koron Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC572

1. The facts are that the appellant, M/s. Koron Business Systems Ltd. manufactures plain copier machines. They sell major part of the goods through M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. The latter charge from their customers Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- on every machine sold towards installation and warranty charges. M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. hold equity shares in the company M/s. Koron Business Systems Ltd. There are two common Directors. The department's contention is that the two companies are related persons and the transaction between them should be rejected on that ground. The period of dispute is 3.1.1984 - 23.6.1988. The show cause notice was issued on 4.1.1989 alleging suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty. Case was adjudicated nine full years later. In fact this order could be set aside on that ground alone. However we examine the merits and the aspect of limitation in the interest of justice.2. The Commissioner sets out the following reasons for concluding that M/s. Koron Busines...

Western Maharashtra Development Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 54,11,564/- in terms of Rule 571 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, and directed recovery of same on the ground that such credit was taken by the appellants herein (manufacturers of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol etc.) availed this credit on the strength of original copies of invoices which were not valid duty paying documents for the purpose of availing credit. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed.2. We have heard both sides. During the period in dispute namely July 1994 to January 1995, duplicate copies of modvat invoices were valid for the purpose of taking credit. As per Notification No. 23/94 dt.20.5.1994. The finding of the adjudicating authority has upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is supported by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Avis Electronics Pvt.Ltd. [2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal)]. The contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellants that the CBEC has cla...

Deepak S/O Bhimrao Bharne and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC65; 2004(2)MhLj987

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The present appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence ordered by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1994. The learned Trial Court has sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Sunita who was married to appellant No. 1, met with suicidal death at village Aakpuri, the place of her father. The prosecution has come out with the story that initially, dowry of Rs. 5000/- was given to the appellant No. 1. Later on, the accused raised demand of Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of installation of Pan shop. Immediately...

Hanumant Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj1052

C.K. Thakker. C.J.1. Rule. In Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2004, Mr. V.P. Malvankar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Dr. V.K. Chowdhari, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 3, appear and waive service of notice of Rule. In Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2004, Dr. V.K. Chowdhari, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Mr. R.M. Patne, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to 6, appear and waive service of notice of Rule. In Writ Petition No. 9640 of 2003, Mr. P.M. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Dr. V.K. Chowdhari, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 4 appear and waive service of notice of Rule.2. In the facts and circumstances, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.3. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law have been raised, and they can, therefore, conveniently be dealt with and decided by a common ...

Zynab Hydari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR874; 2004(3)MhLj275

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the Motion as well as the affidavit in reply, opposing the Motion. The relief prayed in this Notice of Motion is to recall and/or set-aside the order passed by this Court in dismissing the Contempt Petition on the ground of default of the petitioner and his Advocate to appear when the matter was taken up for hearing.2. Counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 submits that the relief claimed in this Application, cannot be granted because this Court has no power to recall the order of dismissing the petition for default. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the unreported decision of this Court dated September 29, 2003 in Notice of Motion No. 2740 of 2003 in Contempt Petition No. 69 of 2003 - Konark Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramakant S. Damohe and Ors. However, on perusal of that order, there is nothing to indicate that the Court has stated the legal position as is pressed on behalf of ...

Hanumant Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit Through Laxman Rambhua ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR609

ORDERC.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. In writ Petition No. 1102 of 2004, Mr. V.P. Malvankar, Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Dr. V.K. Chowdhari, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3, appear and waive service of notice of Rule. In Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2004, Dr. V.K. Chowdhari, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Mr. R.M. Patne, learned/Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 4 to 6, appear and waive service of notice of Rule. In Writ Petition No. 9640. of 2003, Mr. P.M. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Dr. V.K. Chowdhary, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 4, appear and waive service of notice of Rule.2. In the facts and circumstances, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.3. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law have been raised, and they can, therefore, conveniently be dealt with and decided by a commo...

Mansaram Sampat Patil Since Deceased by His Heirs and Lrs. Banubai Man ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj821

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard.2. The defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in R.C.S. No. 20/1779 have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Taloda, which is subsequently confirmed by the learned District Judge, Dhule in Regular Civil Appeal No. 245/1981, in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The respondents/original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 20/1979, seeking eviction of the defendants, on the ground of non user of the suit premises for the period of more than 8 months, defaulting in payment of rent for the period January, 1978 to December, 1978, requirement of the premises for the peaceful and bona fide personal use and occupation of the plaintiffs and unlawful assignment/transfer of their interest.4. The Civil Judge Junior Division, after recording the evidence, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs by judgment and decree dated 11th June, 1981. The decree was challenged by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 24...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Warana Sahakari Dudh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue seeks rectification of error apparent on record in the Tribunal's order No. C-II/1531/WZB/2003 dated 20.6.2003 in E/ROM-33/02 in appeals E/2110/94-A & E/496/95-A.2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the present application are that the assessees herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of malted foods (Bournvita and Cocoa products) on job work basis for M/s.Cadbury India Ltd., were undertaking manufacture on behalf of M/s.Cadbury India Ltd. as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by way of a contract. The assessable value claimed by them was arrived at on the basis of cost of raw material + packing material + conversion charges including manufacturing profit. It was alleged that the value on which duty was being paid was not the normal price as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the wholesale price charged by M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. was the assessable value on which duty was required to be paid. Differential duty of Rs. 101.20 lak...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT118Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal pleading to deny the exemption to Oxygen Storage Tanks installed in the respondents' Plant as a component on the grounds that the tanks on classification under Heading 73.11.00 which is a heading not covered under the Table of capital goods.2. Heard both sides and after consideration of the use and an finding that the Tanks are essential components of the appellants plant and machinery. Relying upon CBEC's departments Circular No. 27/10/96-TRU, dated 2-12-1996 wherein Para 4 reads as - "Accordingly it is clarified that all parts, components, accessories, which are to be used with capital goods of Clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation (1) of Rule 57Q and classifiable under any Chapter heading are eligible for availment of Modvat credit." No merits are found in this appeal to set aside eligibility of the credit allowed....