Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Indian Strips and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC52

1. The facts briefly are that M/s. Indian Strips (I.S.) were manufacturing cold rolled strips on two cold rolled mills and were clearing excisable goods without payment of duty. Shri Jignesh Shah was the person who was looking after the said factory owned by one Shri Hiralal Baktavermal Shah. Shri Jignesh Shah stated that the factory was engaged in reducing the gauge of stainless steel hot rolled pattas, on power operated cold rolling mills, received from various units on job work. The reduction of gauge, according to him, was done by cold rolling process. They received hot rolled S.S. pattas from M/s.Bhoomika Strips Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Dhanlaxmi Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Bhagyodaya Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Navkar Metals for the purpose of reducing the gauge of the pattas so received. All the units are interrelated in the sense that they are owned by persons who are related to each other. It is like a family affair. After collecting job work charges, they returned the goods under delivery...

Empire Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal E/1992/01 from the appellants M/s Empire Industries Ltd. is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the restriction of modvat credit to the extent of 10% as prescribed in Notification No.5/94-CE dated 1.3.94, as amended, in respect of certain petroleum products used by them as "fuel". The Commissioner (Appeals), however set aside the penalty and interest. The revenue appeal E/1900/01 is against this part of the order and prays for passing orders for confiscation and imposition of penalty and interest, as imposed under the order of the original authority.3. It is an admitted fact that Notification No. 5/94-CE (NT) has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1994. The inputs in question are "fuels". It is nobody's case that light diesel oil, LSHS or furnace oil (the fuels involved in the dispute) can not be considered as inputs in their own rights if thes...

Joe Felix D'Souza, Deepak Vs. Commissioner Of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT950Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties we find that it was possible to dispose of the appeals themselves as the principal grievance of Shri Deepak Dialani, on whom duty demand has been confirmed in addition to penalty, and of Joe Felix D'Souza and Prashant Nahata, is that of failure of principles of natural justice. Hence after waiving pre-deposit we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeals with the consent of both sides. (a) held that computer parts and peripherals valued at Rs. 7,62,86,258/- supplied by Shri Dialani to 4 computer manufacturing companies, namely, M/s. Zenith Computers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Minicomp Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Tangerine Informatics and M/s. Melstar Information Technologies Ltd., were liable to confiscation as the goods were smuggled into India; but since goods were not available for confiscation she has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 crores on Shri Dialani in terms of Section 112(a) and (b) of...

Sunil Industries Ltd., P. Rungta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Officers of the preventive Headquarters intercepted a track no WB3761 near Chainindra petrol pump on the Mumbai Nasik highway at about 0200 hrs on 1/12/98 and conducted inquiries about the processed fabrics found loaded in the said truck. The driver and the cleaner of the aforesaid vehicle produced Lorry Receipts bearing numbers 456808, 456811, 456814, 456820 and 456854 to 456913 along with the Manifest No.295 dated 30th November 1998, showing the summary of 69 LRs, along with chits, one bearing number 63119 dated 1st December 1998 of Shil Octroi Naka, pertaining to the Octroi and the other bearing number 56087 dated 1^st December 1998, pertaining to toll collection for Thane-Bhiwandi Bypass. The aforesaid documents showed time of crossing that barrier of as 00.23 Hours. They were unabie to produce duty paying documents. However, they informed that the goods were loaded at M/s Rajdhoot Road Carriers Pvt Ltd. The officers found that the goods were processed at M/s Sunil Industries L...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the said order the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the revenue, against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise. The Deputy Commissioner in his order-in-original in question, dropped the show cause-cum-demand notice seeking recovery of modvat credit of Rs. 53,562/-. The said show cause notice, was issued proposing denial of modvat credit on account of defects in the duty paying documents. The defects in the duty paying documents were enumerated as under:- a) Registration obtained by the dealer mis-declaring certain basic facts.2. While rejecting the revenue's appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under:- It is a well settled law that modvat credit should not be denied on mere technical ground if there is major compliance of modvat rules i.e. if it is a established that, the inputs are duty paid, they are received into the factory and accounted ...

Nichrome Metal Works Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is the availability of modvat credit on the self manufactured goods, exported initially for international trade exhibition and reimported on payment of duty, including (additional duty of Customs) CVD. The appellants filed the required declarations in respect of receipt of CVD paid sub-assemblies of machine received back and then availed modvat credit of the said CVD.The show cause notice alleged that, the appellant's own goods can not be regarded as inputs to allow modvat credit under Rule 57A. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice and dropped the demand. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), by filing appropriate appeal by the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the findings and set aside the order-in-original and confirmed the duty demanded in show cause notice.The appeal of the appellant's challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The order-in-appeal places reliance on ...

Atul Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the instant appeal from the appellants relates to denial of modvat credit under the category of capital goods. The goods in question are:- 1. Textile packing, Immarco Branded Glend packing. Textile Articles, Non Woven Filter Fabrics & PTFE Graphite packing.In the impugned order Passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) credit only in respect of fluroscent street light was allowed and denial of credit on the rest of the items by the adjudicating authority was confirmed.Hence the instant appeal.3. In the impugned order it has been observed that the law relating to coverage of capital goods under went change from 1.3.97. Hence the decisions cited to claim eligibility would not be applicable. The claim was denied on the basis of coverage of the various items under Rule 57Q and it was held that except the Fluroscent lamps, the rest of the items being not covered, the credit is not admissible.4. However, so far as the packing materials listed at serial No. 1 in para 1 above...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Om Electronic System

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant revenue appeal from the Commissioner is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal).2. The duty involved is Rs. 14,439/-. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand for the said amount as well as the penalties imposed on both on the firm and on the individual directors.3. Since only one appeal has been filed by the revenue, the same is considered to be an appeal against the firm and, therefore, the order passed against the individual director has become final.4. The dispute so far as it relates to duty of Rs. 14,439/- is concerned, the same relates to the excisable goods, viz., telephone instruments and consoles installed and used in the 1^st and 2^nd floors of the D.C. Textile Mills Compound, having office/factory of the appellants M/s. OM Electronics Systems, which were allegedly used without payment of duty and without following proper Central Excise procedures.5. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his...

Shri. Pandit Balkrishna Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR82; 2004(3)MhLj25

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioner joined services of Respondent No. 3 as Works Manager. On 30.10.1992 petitioner was appointed to the post of Additional Transport Manager. That order came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4791 of 1992. Various interim applications were also moved in that petition. Record would show that they were rejected. The Petition itself came to be thereafter dismissed as withdrawn. The State Government thereafter in exercise of its powers under Section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by Resolution No. KMC-3094/209/Sub No. 50/94/OD-25 dated 16th June, 1999 set aside the resolution of the Corporation appointing petitioner as Additional Transport Manager. That and an other resolution of Respondent No. 3 is the subject matter of the present petition.2. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the Petitioner various grounds have been raised to challenge the said order of the fir...

Nashim S. Chand Vs. Director, Vocational Education and Training and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR392

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Heard Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Advocate for the Petitioner. Nobody appears for the Respondents, though served.2. The order of the Industrial Court passed in the revision application dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner has been challenged in this petition. The petitioner was employed as a Sweeper with the Industrial Training Institute of Respondent No. 1 since 1990. On 19.3.2000, the services were orally terminated. No wages in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation were tendered at the time of termination of the services. Being aggrieved by this action of the Respondents, the Petitioner filed complaint (ULP) No. 101 of 2000 under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. This complaint came to be decided on 25.4.2003 by the Labour Court. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led before it granted the Petitioner reinstatement with continuity of service. However, back wages payable to the Petitioner during the interregnum were denied.3...