Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Through the Executive Engineer (Ci ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR932

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Award passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar (Reference Court) In L.A.C. No. 213/1989, whereby the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 7,52,700/- from Rs, 2,81,400/- granted by Special Land Acquisition Officer with other benefits like solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation.The Award is not challenged by the State by preferring an appeal, hence, the Local Authority, for whom the land in question was sought to be acquired, preferred this appeal, challenging the said Award, obtaining the leave of this Court.2. Respondent No. 1 deceased Bahlra Gunjal was the owner of an agricultural land Cat No. 287 to the extent of 7 hectares and 66 Ares, situated at village Kedgaon, Tq. Ahmednagar. Respondent No. 2 the State of Maharashtra proposed to acquire the said land for the purpose of constructing 220 KV substation. Present appellant has forwarded the proposal to the Collector, Ahmednagar fo...

Dhanesh Textile Industries P. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC570

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai who has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 7,59,39,106/- against M/s. Dhanesh Textile Ind.P.Ltd. by denying the benefit of Compounded Levy Scheme under Notification No. 36/98-CE as amended by Notification No. 32/2001-CE and imposed penalty of equal amount thereof in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on its Director under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 read with Section 38A of the Act and Rule 26 of the Rules. The benefit has been denied on the twin grounds that the appellant company has proprietary interest in M/s. Dhanesh Industries and M/s. Ruby Silk Mills who are primarily and substantially engaged in the spinning of yarn or weaving or knitting of fabrics and therefore, the appellant company does not fall within the meaning "independent processor" as per Explanation II to the Notification which defines 'independent processor' as " a manufacture...

Yale Intex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT67Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellants, "M/s YALE INTEX" are profit centre of M/s Yale Industrial Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. and had their factory at Nagpur, where they engaged themselves in the manufacture of Terry Towelling Fabrics which was captively consumed in the manufacture of Terry Towels, which were exported. Small quantity of Terry Towels as per Annexure L, were diverted and sold in the domestic market in India. This factory was started in 1991 and was operational upto 1996.2. They were issued a Show cause notice for having conducting their manufacture of Terry Towelling Fabrics and Towels & export without following Central Excise law procedures and as also for the Terry Towelling Fabrics found in the premises confiscation liabilities were raised and for lack of proof of export of Terry Towel, duty demands were to be made and fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods was proposed to be determined & penalty liabilities arrived. In 1994 they obtain a registration under the Central Excise Law. Th...

Furnance and Foundry Equipment Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,40,027/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The demand has been confirmed as a result of denial of the benefit of Notification 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002 as amended, to EOT cranes supplied by the applicants herein to M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd., Balrampur, for installation of ISMW non-conventional renewable source bagasse/biomass based co-generation plant.3. We find prima facie force in the contention of the applicants, based upon the arguments, that the cranes are complete conversion devises producing energy covered at sr. No. 16 of list 9 which is relevant for the purpose of sr. No. 237 of the table annexed to Notification 6/2002, while the department has only considered that they are parts, and parts, only if they are captively consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at sr.Nos. 1 to 20 of list 9, would be eligible to th...

Profitex Pvt. Ltd. and M.S. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. "The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,55,07,036/- and penalty of equal amount on M/s. Profitex Pvt. Ltd. and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon its director, arise out of the order of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad. The duty demand has been confirmed on the applicants herein who are manufacturers of HDPE/PP woven fabrics, nets and doormats, (all capital goods) imported by them without payment of duty, on the ground that the duty free import was in terms of notifications 13/81 and 53/97 and the conditions of these notifications stand violated for non-fulfilment of export obligations by the applicants.3. The applicants contend that it was incumbent upon the Customs authorities to consult the Development Commissioner in a case of non-fulfilment of export obligations by a 100% EOU and rely upon certain circulars of CBEC in support of this submission. They also rely upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vishal footwear Ltd. v. CC, New Del...

Silvassa Wooden Drums Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT392Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi confirmed an amount of Cenvat credit of Rs. 61,91,538/- under Section 11A(2) demanded equal amount under Section 11D, imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules and demand interest under Section 11AB.2. The facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of CRCA galvanized strips. The appellant took Cenvat credit of duty paid on the CRCA Strips and used the said credit while discharging duty on the galvanised strips. Later it was held that of galvanisation of strips does not amount to manufacture and therefore no duty is liable to be paid on galvanized strips. The Commissioners' contention is that since the final product is held to be non dutiable, the appellant should not have taken Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs. He then proceeds to demand the amount involved in the credit taken under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The said Section stipulates that an assessee who colle...

Systematic Steel Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT663Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi.2. The appellant paid duty on the galvanized CRCA Strips, taking MODVAT Credit of duty paid on the strips. The Department accepted such payment of duty during the relevant time holding that galvanization of duty paid strips amounted to manufacture. Later it was held that such process does not amount to manufacture therefore no duty is liable to be paid an galvanized strips. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the appellant was not entitled to take MODVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 3,86,69,236/- of the duty passed on the inputs i.e.CRCA Strips, as the final product namely galvanized strips was held to be not excisable. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence the appeal.PSL Holdings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot 2003 (156) ELT 602 (Tri-Mum) held that when duty was paid on the final product an assessee is entitled to take MODVAT / CENVAT Credit of duty paid on the inputs use...

Amar Bitumen and Allied Products Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT37Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai confirming duty demand of Rs. 93,98,607/-against the appellant company and imposing penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs in terms of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 for the period 1.4.93 to 27.9.96 and Rs. 54,01,636/- under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period 28.9.96 to 31.3.98 and imposing penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs, 1 lakh and 50,000/- on the Managing Director, Chief Executive and Authorised Signatory respectively of the company. The demand confirmation is as a result of classification of the product 'Bitufelt Type III Grade.I' under Chapter Heading 68.07 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985, rejecting the claim of the assessees for classification under Chapter Heading 59.09 read with Notification No.53/65 CE dated 20.3.65 and Notification No. 92/94 CE dated 25.4.94. "The appellants use duty paid hessian cloth as the base fabric. The said fabric is obtained in running length fr...

Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT694Tri(Mum.)bai

1 The appellants, M/s. Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs under Rule 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.During visit of the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Division-I, Nagpur-II, it was observed that the appellants have received MS defective flat bar cuttings etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from various re-rollers of iron and steel, who had opted for the procedure laid down under the Rule 96 ZP (3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was also observed that the appellants were using the said inputs for melting and mixing the same with aluminium for manufacture of the final products.2. It appears that the inputs used by the appellants were not cutting of bars/angles/rods, etc., but were waste and scrap since the prices of the goods were nearer to the prices of ...

Kranti Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT395Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,03,94,239/- and equal penalty arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, who has held that the applicants are not entitled to Cenvat credit of capital goods, viz. sugar plant machinery, in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, on the ground that it was M/s.Krupp Industries India Ltd. who had manufactured the entire sugar plant machinery.3. The applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver in the light of the definition of capital goods in Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which defines capital goods as "all goods falling under Chapters 82, 84 .....used in the factory of the manufacturer of final product." Prima facie there is no finding of the Commissioner that the use of the machinery was by M/s. Krupp Industries India Ltd. in their factory for the manufacture of sugar or molasses. In other words, although the Commissioner has found that the machinery was manufactured by M...