Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Mukand Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant's appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal, whereby their request for refund of Rs. 5,29,299/- was rejected. The appellants are sending certain materials such as, bright bars, coils, rods etc. to the job workers for the process of grinding , pickling, heat treatment, polishing, peeling, etc. These bars are received back from the job workers. The appellants did not receive the scrap that was generated during the said processes undertaken at the job workers' premises. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 57F (5), they made the payment of duly on the scrap by adopting the value of the prime material instead of adopting the value applicable to scrap sale. On realising the mistake, that they had made excess debit of duty on the scrap, they worked out the actual duty payable by them on the value of scrap based on the market value of scrap and sought refund of the said amount, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and also by the Commissioner (Appeals). He...

Angadpal Ind. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 64,50,000/-, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence we proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit.2. The appellants are engaged in processing of textile fabrics (Independent Textile Processors) duty demand was raised for availing self abatement of duty on chambers for the stenter without permission and for non-payment/incorrect payment of interest and delayed payment of the Central Excise duty. The demand of Rs. 27,51,590/- was confirmed by the Jt. Commissioner who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 64,50,000/-.This order was passed without granting any hearing to the appellants.3. Appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with an application in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, for waiver of pre-deposit; by order dt. 4.11.2003 pre-deposit of penalty was...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Mahesh Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-III has preferred this appeal along with other batch of appeals aggrieved by the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay who has modified the order of Assistant Collector in respect of the subject price- lists, directing him to do an assessment of the price -list mentioned in the declaration furnished by the merchants in the manner without adding profit of 10%.2. M/s Shree Mahesh Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwandi, Dist Thane (Assessee) was engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 54 and 55. The assessee filed 35 price lists along with declarations given by merchant manufacturers wherein the assessable value was declared as "cost of yarn used in gray fabrics, job charges + profit in the range of 4 to 7%". These price lists were approved by the Assistant Collector Central Excise Kalyan Dn. Vide Order dated 27.10.92 and enhanced the profit to 10%. Thereafter the assessee has filed an appeal with Collector (Appeals). The...

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Uday S. Kotak, Kotak Mahindra

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)278ITR171(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by revenue and is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 24th March 2000 for Assessment Year 1995-96. Grounds of appeal read as under :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in : 1) directing the assessing officer to adopt the cost of acquisition of half share in the property purchased by the assessee after taking into account the payments made by him to the tenants for acquiring the tenancy right, while computing the deduction admissible Under Section 54F of the I.T. Act; 2) holding that amounts paid to acquire the tenancy rights or to the tenant should be treated as the cost of acquisition; 3) failing to appreciate the plea taken by the assessing officer that the assessee has paid the full amount to the tenant for his one half share while other half owner has not paid any money to the tenant, though he has been benefited by the eviction of the tenant.2. During the year under consideration, the asse...

Shri Kondiba Laxman Hanmar (Since Deceased on 9.9.1987 by His Legal He ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR484; 2004(4)MhLj324

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated March 7, 1986 in Revision No. MRT.NS/III/7/84 (TEN.B.70/84) Pune. Briefly stated, this Petition emanates from the Application preferred by the Respondent No. 5 Trust for issuance of exemption certificate under Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to land bearing Survey No. 383 situated at Aundh, Taluka Khatau, District Satara admeasuring about 30 acres and 21 gunthas, which included Order 22 gunthas, potkharaba land. The Petitioner claims to be tenant in respect of the suit land. It is his case that he was in lawful cultivation of the suit land on the tillers' day i.e. 1st April 1957 and has become deemed purchaser. Indeed, if exemption certificate under Section 88B of the Act was to be issued in favour of the Trust, the cla...

H.S. Rawat Vs. Voltas Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR153; 2005(1)BomCR397; (2005)ILLJ448Bom; 2005(1)MhLj904

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The petitioner has been working in the service of the respondent as an Assistant Security Officer since 3rd November, 1982. On 15th September, 1989, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming overtime wages between 25th December, 1982 and 31st August, 1989. The Labour Court framed five issues on 24th October, 1991; the three principal issues being: (i) Whether the petitioner proves his claim as set out in Exh. U-1; (ii) Whether the claim is legally maintainable; and (iii) Whether the petitioner is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue in regard to whether the petitioner is a workman was raised since in the reply to the application, the management contended that the petitioner is not a workman.2. On 18th June, 1996, the management submitted an application recording that the application was pending before the Court since 1991 for leading evidence and the matter had been adjourned ti...

Khairul Jabbar and ors. Vs. L.C.T. Korea Horizon and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR210; 2005(101)ECC375

Deshmukh D.K., J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are members of the crew of the defendant No. 1 vessel i.e. L.C.T. Korea Horizon. They have filed this suit for recovery of the arrears of their salary as also certain sums which the plaintiffs paid on maintenance of the vessel. The defendant No. 1 vessel was a vessel of Panama Registry, defendant No. 2 is the owner of that vessel. It may be pointed out here that the vessel was arrested by an order made by this Court. Thereafter, the vessel has been sold and the sale proceeds are presently lying in the Court. The plaintiffs are therefore claiming a decree. They also claim that decretal amount shall be paid to them from sale proceeds of the vessel. The monetary decree sought by the plaintiffs is not opposed by the defendant No. 2. The suit is opposed only by defendant No. 4 Union of India.2. It appears that in the month of April 1989, the defendant No. 1 vessel was seized by the authorities of the Customs Department. This suit appears to ha...

Gopalkrishna S/O Domaji Aswale Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR858

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard. The present appeal has been taken out by the original claimant/appellant herein, against the judgment dated 29th July, 1992 passed in the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 6/1981, whereby an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act) made by the appellant, was also rejected, basically on the ground that applicant had not filed any claim petitions before the Land Acquisition Officer.Effect of non-filing of basic claims2. This issue of effect of non filing of claim petition under Section 9 Sub-clause (2) of the Act, goes to the root of the matter, in this case. While rejecting the application learned Judge has considered the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shantabai Shrikrishna Dhamankar and Anr. 1979 Mh. L. J. 673 relevant para is reproduced as under :'Section 25(2) provides for a contingency where the owner has either refused to make a claim or has omitted to make a claim witho...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Bhushan Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondents were engaged in manufacture of excisable Man Made Fabrics and availed Modvat Credit as per law, on the inputs. Since they were exporting the fabrics so manufactured, under Bond without payment of duty, the Credit of Modvat in balance could not be utilised. They were entitled to refund of such credits, by the CCE (Appeals) as it was found- i) Rule 57F (13) provides for cash refund of unutilised credit and major portion of the goods manufactured were exported and the credit in balance and utilization thereof is not in dispute. ii) The adjudicator finding, that evidence that credit could not be other wise utilised on home clearances was not sustainable since statements were submitted showing production clearance and exports. These figures were available in RT12 monthly returns filed and were required to be considered. Payment on duty from personal Ledger Account and clearing refunds would not be beneficial to the assessee. Therefore there is no reason to suspect that the a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mukund Chemical Engg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These 3 appeals having been filed by revenue. The issue involved is same and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Commissioner (Appeals) relying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mittal Engg. 1996 (88) ELT 622 (SC) and M/s Quality Steel Private Ltd 1995 (75) ELT 17 (SC) and on finding that parts and components are taken to the site and fixed there and in such a way for final article comes in to existence only, in the shape of an immovable structure attached to the earth. It is regarded as immovable property and not liable to Central Excise duty. Therefore errection, commissioning and technical know how costs incurred at site all plant and machinery which are attached to earth and are not needed to move weren't included in the assessable value.3. Revenue has taken the ground. In the case of M/s Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd 1998 97 ELT 3 (Supreme Court) with regard to paper making machine assessable and erected at site had held the same to be not an immovable pr...