Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Manoramabai Amrutrao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Laxman Atmaram Kathale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR806; 2005(2)BomCR353

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard. The second appeal has been taken up by the original plaintiff, the appellants herein, and challenged the judgment, and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 152/89 dtd. 20th December, 1990 which arose out of judgment dtd. 19th April, 1989, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 16/89 whereby, the appellant had claimed relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from doing any damage to the western side wall of their house, more specifically shown as letters 'E, F, G, J, I, J, D' in the plaint map.2. The second appeal has been admitted on 19-6-1991 on the following question of law.'Construction of a document Exh. 29 styled as sale-deed would be a substantial question of law involved in this appeal Status quo as regards the wall in question'.3. There is no dispute that status quo is in operation in the matter since then, even though injunction was not granted by the lower courts.4. The appellants contended that they are the owner o...

Shri Claudio Francisco Vs. Smt. Eulalia Fernandes, (Since Deceased) an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR247; (2005)107BOMLR636

S.A. Bobde, J.1. These two first appeal Nos. 70/99 and 72/99 can be disposed of together since they involve the same transactions and arise out of two suits which challenge the same transactions.2. In the village of Sanquelim, in Bicholim Taluka there is property known as 'Urbano' or 'Sakhayali Ali' bearing Survey No. 17/1. This property was originally owned by Gregory Fernandes who was a widower. He died on 14.11.1990 leaving behind one son and three daughters. Of these children, two are involved in the present litigation, namely the daughter Eulalia and the son Constancio.3. Within a week upon the death of Gregory, his son Constancio executed a sale deed in respect of 180 sq. metres on 21.11.1990 in favour of one Claudio Francisco Remedios Marques. Soon, thereafter, on 30.12.1990, the appellant executed another sale deed for an area of 200 sq. metres in favour of said Claudio, He appears to have sold the said property not only without consulting the other co-owners, but also his wife...

irony Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. As these appeals raises common issue i.e. clubbing of proprietary concern with that of private limited company, they are being disposed off by a common order.2. M/s. Irony Clothings Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL) were manufacturers of readymade garments i.e. jeans and trousers falling under the chapter heading 6.2 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On information that M/s.ICPL was not paying duty even after crossing exemption limit of Rs. 1.00 crore, the Central Excise Authorities visited the premises of the assessee. Certain documents were withdrawn in readymade garments valued at Rs. 12,66,252/- and seized under Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 on 25.01.2002.3. Shri Venkatesh Yedidh, a Director of ICPL, disclosed that in the past he was proprietor of M/s. Venkey & Co., which manufactured branded jeans and trousers. The said company closed down in July, 2001.4. On scrutiny of records, it is found that both the units used both the brand names i.e. 'IRONY' and Termina...

Bell Granito Ceramic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This application is Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for un-conditional dispensation with the requirement of pre-deposit of differential central excise duty of Rs. 20,26,421/- in respect of two show cause notices dated 6.1.2003 and 9.4.2003, which have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.2. On filing appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the same for non-compliance of the pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The appellant also filed miscellaneous application for modification of the stay order and also requested for personal hearing. On hearing the appellant, the appeal was dismissed as no new ground is set forth and they have also failed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs as directed earlier.3 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter heading No. 6905.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act,...

Kasturilal Harichand Ohri and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture and sale of furniture falling under CETA sub-heading 9403.00. They did not obtain Central Excise registration for the manufacture of these goods; although the clearance value exceeded the prescribed limit as specified in SSI Notification Nos. 175/86 dated 01/03/1986, 1/93 dated 01/03/1993 and 7/97 dated 01/03/1997 and as amended. They also did not file any classification list/classification declaration and cleared the goods without payment of duty. Show cause notice was issued in August, 1999 proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 3,62,266/- on clearances made during the period 1994-95 to 1997-98 on the above basis. The notice also proposed adjustment of the duty of above mentioned amount which was paid prior to the issue of the show cause notice and also proposed levy of interest and imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner upholding the demand together with interest and imposing penalties of R...

Kohinoor Trading Co. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties as detailed in the annexure to this order arise out of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane. The period of dispute is 1996-97. The demand has been confirmed as a result of dis-allowing modvat credit to M/s. Viraat Ispat Ltd. in respect of M.S. Scrap on the ground interalia that they did not actually receive the inputs on which the credit was availed, in their factory premises, as the vehicles mentioned in the dealers invoices were found to be delivery van and municipal vehicles and that the applicants received something different from the inputs declared on the dealers invoice.2. We have heard both sides. Evidence on record shows that after receipt of duty paid scrap from original manufacturers such as M/s Essar Steel, M/s. Telco, M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. etc by the dealers they segregate mixed scrap, good quality scrap is sold at prices higher than the purchase price; out of low quality scrap some part ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Asian Paints (India) Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of paints, varnishes, enamels, falling under TI 14 and TI 68 of the schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Till December, 1978 they were paying duly on inputs value at the time of clearance and the goods were so assessed; and thereafter they switched over to payment of duty in respect of products manufactured by them on the assessable value computed on the basis of manufacturing cost + manufacturer's profit. In September, 1979 provisional approval was refused by the Assistant Collector who directed that the final assessment should be done on the basis of invoice value. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who by his order dated March, 1981 remanded the case for denovo adjudication. Pursuant to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International in May, 1983 the department finalised the assessment and issued 54 demands to the assessee. Appeal was preferred to the Collector ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Warren Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner, after considering the material on record and arriving at a finding that the department has not taken into consideration 1) after issue of raw material, the product is manufactured after 2 to 3 weeks sometimes more, so the production is at times accounted for in next month. 2) The losses have not been taken into account, in support submitted, master formula, a very important document supposed to be kept by the manufacturer, as per schedule 'M' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This master formula allows certain losses and various yields at different stages of manufacturers. 3) Manufacturing of pharmaceuticals are governed under the purview of drugs and cosmetics act. 4) Department have not taken into consideration the permissible overages added while calculating production quantities. 5) Certain products have a limit of active or main ingredient prescribed by various pharmacopoeias. This limi various product to product. The higher limit is allowed to compensate possi...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nasik who held that the goods cleared as waste and scrap by the appellant is capable of being used for manufacture of smaller components and therefore can not be classified under 7204.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, as scrap but is appropriately classifiable under 7210.10 as 'shapes'. The Ld. Commissioner (A) held that duty applicable to inputs (7210.10) is payable under Rule 57F(i) (ii) of Central Excise Rules.2. The period in dispute April 1997 to March 1998. The amount of duty demanded is Rs. 35,22,629.43/-.3. The appellant receives duty paid CRCA sheets for manufacture of motor vehicles. The steel sheets are subjected to operations like drawing, forming, blanking etc. on hydraulic presses. During such operations certain scrap arises and such scrap is collected and sold by public auction by the appellants on payment of duty applicable to waste and scrap under Chapter heading 7204.90. The Commissioner (A) he...

Surya Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 7,66,730/- confirmed on printed/imprinted laminated plastic films manufactured by the applicants and cleared in the year November 1993 to March 1994 on the ground that the benefit of exemption under Notification 14/92-CE., dated 1-3-92 was not available as the inputs, bare duty paid plastic film, fell under Heading 39.20 while the requirement of the Notification was that the final product should be made out of plastic materials falling under Chapters 39.01 to 39.15, arises out of the Order of Commissioner (Appeals).2. We have heard both sides. The applicants made a strong prima facie case for waiver in view of the Board's Circular dated 25-6-1987 and 22-8-90, in which very same issue came up for consideration and it was clarified that as long as duty paid bare films, which hove gone into the manufacture of such lacquered/laminated/metallised plastic films can be proved to have been manufactured out of duty-paid plastic materi...