Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Shantabai Wd/O Givindrao Ghorpade and ors. Vs. Indubai Wd/O Raghunath ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR99; 2005(2)MhLj553

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the original Defendant/appellant herein against the original plaintiff/respondent herein, and thereby, challenged the judgment and decree dated 21-6-1991 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1990, whereby appellant original defendant's appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 656 of 1987 dated 21-8-1990 was set aside, whereby it has been further directed to deliver the possession of the suit field to the respondent immediately and permanent injunction from interfering with the possession was also granted. 2. This Second Appeal was admitted on 19-7-1991 on the following question of law : 'Admit on the ground of validity of a Sale Deed executed in favour of the respondent.' Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant requested to agitate an additional question of law : Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in quashing and setting aside the judgme...

Uttam Ambadas Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR914

Marlapalle B.H., J. 1. Heard Shri Raghuwanshi for the petitioner, Shri Salunke for respondent No. 3, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and Shri Bagul for respondent No. 7.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad on 8th July, 2004 in Election Petition No. of 2002, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By the said decision, the election petition, filed by the present respondent No. 3, came to be allowed and the petitioner came to be unseated as a member of the Managing Committee (Board of Directors) of the respondent No. 7 Bank Le. the District Central Co-operative Bank, Parbhani.3. On or about 8th of March, 2001 one of the sitting members of the Managing Committee of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Lasina vacated his post and in his place the petitioner came to be co-opted on 24th March, 2001 as a member of the said village level society which, in turn, is a member ...

Dilip Chhabria Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC415

1. The issue in this case is the eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 3/2001 when on the duty paid chassis, brought on wheel bus bodies etc were fabricated. The appellants brought duty paid chassis and did not take Modvat credit of duty paid on such chassis. However, the credit of an amount of approx Rs. 36,246/- was taken in the RG23A Part I and correspondingly entry in Part II on certain items i.e. paints, glass etc. These items like paints, glasses etc were thereafter also used in the fabrication/construction on bodies of such chassis. The appellants have not reversed the credit availed on such paints, glasses, etc before taking up the same for utilising the same for the bodies. Therefore, duty demands have been made and benefit of Notification 3/2001 was denied. The matter of availment of the benefit of a notification depending upon Modvat credit not taken, is no longer res integra following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pv...

Haldyn Glass Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the so-called "credit cost" is not interest accruing on delayed realisation of the sale proceeds, but is additional consideration and is a part of the assessable value and required to be included in the value for the purpose of calculation and discharge of duty. The reasons on which he arrived at this findings are as follows: "(v) The credit cost has been worked out not on any fixed percentage basis. It varies' from consignment to consignment, customer to customer and also different for different size/shape of the product supplied to a single buyer (vi) They have accepted the fact that they have charging "credit cost" from all their buyers. (vii) They have also admitted that credit is finalised by mutual agreement between buyers. Generally, the price of the product is negotiated between the supplier and buyer interest for the credit, period. However, for credit period or for delayed paym...

Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. M/s. Elecon Engineering Company Limited are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and are holding Central Excise Registration No. 6/VVNII/92. On the basis of intelligence received indicating that M/s. Elecon are clearing excisable goods without payment of duty by availing exemption under Notification No. 180/95 dated 28.8.95 without fulfilling the conditions for such exemption prescribed in the said Notification, an investigation carried out revealed that M/s.Maharashtra State Electricity Board was undertaking a Thermal Power Station project at Chandrapur, which was proposed to be funded by the World Bank and that M/s. Elecon had been approved for the supply and construction of the coal handling plant for the said project.Notification 180/95 provides exemption for all goods falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 when supplied to the UN or an international organization for their o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Polson Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals by the Revenue arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order held that he had no power to remand the matter to the original authority after amendment to Section 35A by the Licence Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001. It appears that the Revenue filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the lower authority with a sole prayer that he should remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that since he had no power to remand and no supplementary prayer had been made before him to deal with the matter in any other manner he had no other option except to dismiss the appeal filed before him by the Revenue.2. The Revenue is in appeal against this order before the Tribunal. The grounds are that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the merits of the case and confined himself to the prayer made by the appellant department and that he erred while deciding the case that he has no powe...

indo Berolina Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides in these two appeals, following orders are passed.2. The appellants are manufacturers of certain parts and machinery for chemical industries. These are manufactured as per their own drawings and designs and as per the specifications provided by their customers.In certain cases, it was observed that another Public Limited Company by name M/s IBI Chematur (Engg & Consultancy) Ltd at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as IBIC), and who are engaged in the activity of undertaking consultancy, design and engineering services related to Chemical, petro-chemical, fine chemicals, organic chemicals, pharmaceutical, explosives etc. during the period impugned herein, supplied such consultancy as per agreements entered into by the customers of the appellant assessee under the Central Excise Act herein. The disputed demands of duties were raised under Section 11A along with proposals for penalty under Section 11AC on the following grounds: a) The appellant Company and I...

Sotex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is the second time the matter has travelled to this Tribunal consequent to the remand orders made earlier. On perusal of the Show Cause Notice, it is found that duty demands have been made on M/s Sotex amounting to approx Rs. 5.99 lakhs and other companies i.e. M/s Unity Industries, M/s Sonic, and M/s Stelex along with penalty proposals. The Commissioner, however, has determined the duty demand of Rs 1.45 crores on M/s Sotex only and imposed a penalty of Rs 1.00 lakh along with various other penalties imposed on the other appellants which are the subject matter of the present applications.3. Prima facie we do not find that there is a case or cause for clubbing the clearances of the units as arrived at by the Commissioner.The order also suffers from vice of having proceeded to determine the duty demands in excess of the notice issued. However, on a prima facie consideration, we find that the duty demand of Rs 5.99 lakhs as proposed in the Show Cause Notice has been made out and...

C.C. Patel and Associates (Pvt.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Service

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT278Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority rejecting a refund claim made by the appellant in respect of the excess Service Tax. paid. The claim itself was rejected on the ground that it was time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 1944.2. Briefly the facts are that the Service Tax for the month of July 1998 was paid on 6.8.1998 and 24.8.98 and for the month of September 1998 was paid on 28.9.1998 and 13.10.1998. The excess payment of Rs. 42,500/- and Rs. 39,700/- occurred in July 1998 and September 1998 respectively. Under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, made applicable to Service tax, an application for refund has to be filed within six months from the date of payment of duty. Since the application was not made between the statutory period it was rejected on the ground of limitation. The appellant's plea that the period for computing the limit of six month...

Feature Home Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application for restoration of appeal is against the order of the Tribunal's Order No. C-III/1999.WZB/2003 dt. 26.12.03. In the above said order the Tribunal dismissed the stay application filed by the applicant on the ground that only a photocopy has been filed in the place of a proper stay application. After dismissing the stay application the Bench directed the appellant to deposit the duty demanded and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority within a month from the date of receipt of the order and in the event of failure to comply with the order the appeal will be dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the lower authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,55,747/- being the duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, and a further penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. The issue pertains to wrong availment of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dt.28.2.93, inasmuch as the applicant was manufacturing g...