Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The short issue involved in the present appeal of the revenue is as to whether "Waste Filter Cake" generated in the respondent's factory during the course of manufacture of Chemical Additives falling under Chapter Heading 38 and 39 of the first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, is an excisable commodity classifiable under heading 3824.90. It is seen that the matter had earlier come up before the Tribunal in the respondent's own case against an order of the Commissioner and was disposed off vide order No. C-1/3806/01/WZB/2001 dated 13-12-2001, when the same was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the Larger Bench's decision.2. In the present proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken note of the above decision of the Tribunal, apart from the discussing the issue on merits and has held that waste filter cake cannot be held to be excisable inasmuch as the same is not a manufactured product, but a waste material with negative commercial val...

Piramal Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of spun yarn falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were paying duty on the said yarn at spindle stage. Thereafter, various processes like bleaching, dyeing or mercerising etc. were being undertaken by them in respect of the duty paid yarn, which was further being captively consumed or cleared for home consumption.2. The Revenue entertained a view that various processes like bleaching and dyeing amounted to manufacture inasmuch as a new identifiable commodity emerged and accordingly issued five show cause notices dated 1-11-1995 for the period March 1994 to January 1995 and from 18-5-1995 to 31-5-1995, demanding total duty of Rs. 16,22,479/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs twenty-two thousand four hundred seventy-nine only). The said show cause notices were adjudicated upon by the Deputy Commissioner, confirming the demand as also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees F...

Shital Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against an Order in Appeal dated 9-10-2003, which disposed off the appeals bearing No. 267 to 270/03 (267 to 270-A-II/CE-A(III) by a common order. Therefore, the aforesaid appeals are also being disposed off by a common order. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chemicals along with oxidized vegetable oil falling under Chapter Heading 1508.90 attracting Nil rate of duty. The item, oxidized vegetable oil, is not an oil, which is extracted from either oil seeds or such materials bearing plant origin, which may attract cess. The said oxidized vegetable oil is prepared from Soyabean oil by adding hydrogen peroxide, formic acid, phosphoric acid as well as caustic soda lye. All the above ingredients are poured in one vessel and mixed, Which prepares the product oxidized vegetable oil.3. The Central Excise Department started issuing Show Cause Notices from July 1999 to March 2002. The original authority has confirmed the demands vide or...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC517

1. These three appeals are being disposed off by this common order.Assessee, the respondents herein processed goods received for job work under notification 214/86 and cleared the same without payment of duty and reversal of credit on inputs 'fuel' used in the processing of the goods received for job work. The respondents had taken credit of duty on Carbon Black Feed Stock and Furnace Oil to be used as fuel. These inputs were used as fuel for their own product as well as for the job work being undertaken for others. Notices were issued for contravention of provisions of Rules 57CC(1) & 57AD(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 and Rules 6(1) 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 read with provision of Central Excise Act and demands of credit wrongly availed on fuel was confirmed along with penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed in the order now impugned after I find that the appellants have pleaded that the said provisions of erstwhile Rule 57C is not applicable in case of ...

Uni Deritend Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The claim for refund under Rule 173L was settled in favour of the appellants on 22-8-01. Consequent to this settlement the Asst.Commissioner ordered the appropriation of the said amount against a pending demand on some other issue. The assesssee went in appeal, which was allowed by Commisioner (Appeals) on 30-4-03 consequent to this order of CCE (A) implementation was effected by the lower authority by a notice for rejection of refund on certain grounds. The ground were met /complied by the assessee on 29-7-03. The refund amount was sanctioned on 29-7-03. The appellants have made a claim for interest from 29-8-98 i.e. from 3 months from making the claim for refund under Rule of 173L. This interest claimed, has been totally rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that refund became entitled only on 20-5-03 i.e. the date on which the appellants filed the appropriate refund claim consequent to an order of Commissioner (Appeals) dtd 30-4-03 & the same stands settled on 29-7...

Shri Kishen Kumar Narandas Jobanputra and Son of Narandas Jobanputra V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR36; (2006)108BOMLR222; 2006(2)MhLj881

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is defendant's Second Appeal arising from the Special Civil Suit No. 85/86/A and was admitted by order of this Court dated 23/6/2000, on a question of law which reads as follows: Whether in the facts and circumstances the Court below was right in awarding mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 75/- per day? 2. The Respondent No. 1, now represented by the legal heirs, were duly served, but have chosen not to contest this appeal. The Respondent No. 2 as can be seen from the order of this Court dated 10/10/2002 was a firm which is no more in existence, and the partners of which are already on record as legal heirs of Respondent No. 1. 3. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit. 4. The Plaintiffs (Respondents before this Court) had filed the said Civil Suit for the eviction of the Defendant from residential House No. E-499 admeasuring about 177 sq. mts. belonging to one Shri Sertorio Coelho and situated ...

Sitabai Kerba Deotarse and ors. Vs. Anil Sahebrao Deotarse and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR833; 2006(2)MhLj65

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard Mr. Barhate, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. P. F. Patni, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. V. H. Dighe, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 5 to 7, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, absent, though served.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties concerned and heard finally.3. This petition was taken up for admission before this Court on 9-8-2005 and this Court (Coram : S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) directed issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 within two weeks and further directed that the trial Court shall not proceed ex parte against defendant Nos. 4 to 10. The defendant Nos. 4 to 10 are the petitioners in the present petition. In other words, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were not put to notice by this Court.4. Few facts, necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as follows :a) Petitioners are defendant Nos. 4 to 10 in Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1991 filed by the respondent No. 1, who was plaintiff in the said sui...

Kolhapur Zilla Rajya Abkari Parvana Dharak Samajik Seva Sangh Vs. Kolh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR389; 2006(3)BomCR685; 2006(2)MhLj507

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The appellant-plaintiff has challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, dated 5-8-2004, by which a judgment and decree passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Kolhapur, in Reg. Civil Suit No. 450/1996, dated 5-8-2005, has been confirmed, thereby the suit filed by the appellant to have a declaration under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, was dismissed with cost. The appellant is an association of retailers of Country Liquor, within the Kolhapur District. The appellant is an association established for the welfare of a person dealing in liquor business. The members of the appellant society are running country liquor shops within the limit of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation-respondent. The members are required to obtain licence from the respondents and therefore, they required to pay requisite licence fee, which used to be increased from time to time. It was lastly increased upto Rs. 500/- per year. Somet...

Geeta Shirish Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR303; 2006(3)MhLj420

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing.2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division Mumbai in Appeal No. Desk/Eln-194 of 2005 dated 14-9-2005.3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the issue are stated as under:The petitioner contends that the elections to the Managing Committee of Maharashtra State Co-operative Milk Mahasangh Limited Mumbai were to be held. According to the election programme, the filing of nomination paper was started from 5-9-2005. The scrutiny was to be held on 8-9-2005. The date of withdrawal of nomination was 23-9-2005 and the polling was scheduled on 11-10-2005. The petitioner - Sow Geeta Shirish Chaudhari filed her nomination paper. Respondent No. 6 - Mahendrasing Nimba Pawar also filed his nomination paper with the Returning Officer - respondent No. 3 herein. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 6 has been held to be ...

Prajwal Manikrao Sahare and anr. Vs. Maharashtra University of Health ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)MhLj230

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. These petitions are by students who have completed the second year course in Bachelor of Dental Surgery with the respondent University. All the petitioners have failed in the subject of Pre-Clinical Prosthodontics. They, therefore, claim that they be allowed to keep terms in the third year of B.D.S. Course.3. In Writ Petition No. 5087 of 2005 the three petitioners, in addition to the above, claim grace marks. Since a common point is involved in all the three petitions they have been heard and are being disposed of simultaneously by this judgment at the admission stage.4. The petitioners have all been admitted to the B.D.S. Course being conducted by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as Health University). This course is a 4 years' course. It is conducted, admittedly, in accordance with the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India under the Dentists Act, 1948 by the Central Gover...