Mumbai Court January 2012 Judgments

M/S. P.S.C. Pole Factory Vs. Cce Nagpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed an application for early hearing of the stay application. As the stay application is listed for hearing today, the application for early hearing is dismissed as infructuous. 3. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.42,98,419/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 74/93-C.E dated 28.02.1993 which grants exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of the goods manufactured in a factory belonging to a State Government and intended for use by any department of the Government. 4. We find that on merits the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) vs. CCE Raipur as reported in 2008 (232) ELT 628 (Tri. LB) in favour of the Revenue. In view of the decision the applicant is only contesting the demand on limitation. In the present case a show-cause notice was issued on 25.08.2010 d...

Kaushal Solar Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Pun ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with stay application.2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturers of solar water heater system and they are selling it to their customers at site and installing the same. For the activity of installation, they are not charging any separate amount. As the activity of installation, erection and commissioning falls under the service category of ‘Installation, Erection and Commissioning Service’ therefore, the department was of the view that the appellant are required to pay service tax by claiming abatement as per Notification No. 15/2004 on the total value received and on balance 33% they have to pay service tax. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued and the matter was adjudicated confirming the demands, alon...

M/S Aarti Textiles Industries Through Its Prop. Shyamlal A. Chhabria V ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member M/s.Aarti Textile Industries through its Proprietor Mr.Shyamlal Amarlal Chhabria had filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 30/06/2009. The complaint is registered as consumer complaint no.CC/09/125. The complainant contended that they have taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the opponent Insurance company. The policy number is 140700/11/08/11/00000560 and the period of insurance was from 07/06/2008 to 06/06/2009. In the policy the risk cover was for Factory shed, Compound wall, Plant- machinery and accessories, Furniture, Fixtures and Fittings, Stock and Stock in process of own and held in Trust. Total sum insured was Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Accordingly, the premium was paid and building and stock was hypothecated with the Union Bank of India. Complainant further contended that on 07/12/2008 around 9.30 p.m. there was a major fire on second floor of the factory due to electric short circuit. The Fire brigade w...

M/S M.K. Textile Industries Through Its Prop. Amarlal T. Chhabria Vs. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member M/s. M.K.Textile Industries through its Proprietor Mr. Amarlal Tharumal Chhabria had filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 03/07/2009. The complaint is registered as consumer complaint no.CC/09/128. It is the contention of the complainant that they have taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the opponent Insurance company. The policy number is 140700/11/08/11/00000421 and the period of insurance was from 16/05/2008 to 15/05/2009. In the policy the risk covered was for Factory shed, Compound wall, Plant- machinery and accessories, Furniture, Fixtures and Fittings, Stock and Stock in process of own and held in Trust. Total sum insured was Rs.2,25,00,000/-. Accordingly, the premium was paid and building and stock was hypothecated with the Union Bank of India. The firm has availed cash credit facility limit of Rs.70 lakhs and term loan of Rs.64 lakhs from the Union Bank of India, Ulhas Nagar, District Thane. Co...

Ms. Vaishali Satish Ganorkar and anr. Vs. Mr. Satish Keshaorao Ganorka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2012Bom101; 2012(2)ALLMR737; 2012(3)MhLj669

ORDER1. The appellants (original plaintiffs) are the daughters of respondent No.1 (original defendant No.1). Respondent No.2 (original defendant No. 2) is the bank from which respondent No.1 has taken a loan which has not been repaid. Respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).2. The appellants have sued to protect the share that they claim in the property mortgaged to the bank by respondent No.1. They claim 2/3rd share therein as coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisting of themselves and respondent No.1. As the daughters of respondent No.1 they claim in the capacity as coparcener under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA) which came to be substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (39 of 1956) which came into effect from 9 September 2005 (HSA).3. Upon the creation of the mortgage in respect of the sui...

Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The application is filed by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues. 3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs 38,83,087/-, interest and penalty and appropriated an amount of Rs 13,73,007/- already paid by the appellant during investigation. The appellant filed application before the Commissioner (Appeals) for waiver of pre-deposit and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicant to deposit Rs 32.00 lakhs for hearing of the appeal. The applicant in pursuance of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) debited an amount of Rs 25,10,080/- from their Cenvat Credit account. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that by debiting amount in the Cenvat Credit Account as pre-deposit cannot be accepted as compliance with the condition of stay order. 4. The contention of the applicant is that the demand o...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. P.C. Pole Facto ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang 1. Heard the Additional Commissioner (A.R) for Revenue, as none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. On the last date of hearing also none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a refund of Rs 21,032/- was allowed. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P.C. poles and supplying to Maharashtra State Electricity Board under a contract. The assessments were not provisional and the respondents cleared the PC poles on payment of appropriate duty. Subsequent to the clearances, Maharashtra State Electricity Board reduced the price as per the terms of the contract. In view of the reduction, respondents filed a refund claim. The same was rejected by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents had not asked for provisional assessment and the goods were clea...

J. Square Steels Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 32,08,409/- interest and penalties. The applicant has already paid a sum of Rs 9,19,395/- during the investigation. 3. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants suppressed the production of their final product with intent to evade payment of duty. The case of the Revenue is that on 18.9.2008, two trucks were intercepted and it was found that both the trucks carried the goods manufactured by the applicants and the goods found in one truck were not accompanying any Central Excise invoice. Further investigation was conducted and it was found that the applicants had not maintained records upto 11.9.2008. On the basis of this and after taking into consideration the electricity consumption for the manufacture of goods per metric tone, the demand is confirmed. 4. The contention of the applicants is that within a week from the date of seizure, the applicants filed r...

Shanti Synthetics and Processors Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang 1.  Heard both sides. 2. The application is filed by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 28,58,839/-, interest and penalty. The demand is for the period 16.12.98 to 28.2.99 and March 99 to February 2000. The demand is under the Hot Air Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. 3. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers vs Union of India 2001 (12) LCR 0197 (2004 (166) ELT 27 (Mad) held that Rule 3 of the said Rules to be ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 4. The Revenue submitted that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) held that the assessees are liable to pay duty of excise under Section 3 of the Act or under any other provisions contemplated for the same. 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, where the Hon’ble High Court held that the rules under which the...

Bala K. Ayer Vs. M/S. Lokhandwala Constuction Industries P Ltd. and An ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member (1) This complaint is filed against the builder alleging deficiency in service on the part of the builder for not handing over possession of the flat agreed to be purchased and for not executing the conveyance of the property. (2) Undisputed facts are that, Complainant Mr.Bala K. Iyer, agreed to purchase a flat bearing No.1802 situated on 18th Floor in B Wing of the building known as Fountain Heights being constructed at Kandivali (E), Mumbai, by Opponent No.1 M/s.Lokhandwala Construction Industries P. Ltd. (referred as the Builder) for a total consideration of Rs.74,16,080/- as quoted in the application for allotment. Complainant has paid Rs.3,70,804/- at the time of making such application for allotment on 22.09.2007, paid further amount of Rs.30,00,000/- on 25.12.2007 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 05.05.2008, total amounting to Rs.43,70,804/- towards the part consideration. (3) It is the case of the Complainant that in spite of making payment of subs...