Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)(89)ELT199Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the registry brought to my notice a letter dated 28-6-1996 from the appellants requesting for an adjournment. However, considering the nature of the order being passed, it is not necessary to grant any adjournment and hence the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appeal is directed against the captioned order-in-appeal confirming the order-in-original dated 22-2-1991 of the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise, Sangli Divn.3. The issue involved is, whether, in granting benefit for availment of Modvat credit on the goods lying in stock on the date when the declaration under Rule 57G is filed, should be restricted to the actual duty paid or the benefit of higher notional credit contemplated under Rule 57B should also be given. There is no dispute that application under Rule 57H has already been filed seeking permission to avail of the Modvat credit on the goods lying in stock.4. Shri Talagia, the ld. JDR, submits that for the purpose of Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT575Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.PPM/1780/B-1-475/85 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay confirming the duty demand for Rs. 10,085.25.2. The Appellants cleared 14 cases of Steel Safes and Strong Boxes under AR 4 form, on 1-8-1975 without payment of duty by executing B-I Bond. The said goods were loaded on Board a Vessel for being exported.After the Vessel left Bombay Port on 30-8-1975, it caught fire and hence was brought back to Bombay Port and the Voyage was abandoned. The consignment including the said consignment were off loaded, which were taken as re-landing and customs duty was charged vide Section 20 of the Customs Act, which was paid. The Excise Department however, issued Show Cause cum-Demand Notices, demanding duty of Rs. 10,085.25 or to produce Certificate for due export. The Appellant pleaded that the return of the goods was treated as re-import and accordingly, Customs duty was charged and hence, export having been deemed to have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT671Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. A/06/92 dated 13-1-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, (Appeals) Pune.2. The Appellants sought permission from the Competent Authority for remission of duty vide Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules for 1310.440 M.T. of Molasses involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 41,279/- on the ground that the same had became unfit for consumption. The same was granted by the Collector vide his Order dated 25-5-1984. The Appellants, however, during the period from 18-6-1984 to 3-8-1984 removed the said quantity by sale of the same to one Mr. Wadekar for Rs. 1,00,000/- and hence show cause notice dated 13-12-1984 was issued demanding duty of Rs. 41,270.86. The said demand had been contested and it was contended that the removal was not as Molasses but as the Waste for being used as Fertilizer and hence no duty was chargeable. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand, however, on review application filed, the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR199; 1996(2)MhLj746
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 126 of 1991 and Civil Writ Petition No. 1527 of 1991. It is admitted by both the sides that both the writ petitions are identical, in that challenge has been made to the selection made on the post of Assistant Registrar, by the same Selection Committee. For the purposes of this judgment, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 126 of 1991. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of respondent No. 1 as a Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 4th January, 1960. He was confirmed on the said post on 31st January, 1970. He was promoted as Assistant Superintendent on 11th April, 1973. He was confirmed on the said post on 1st April, 1980. In due course he was promoted as Superintendent on 17th August, 1981 and Senior Superintendent on 8th June, 1987. He pleads that he has a clean record of service. However, he was served with a Memorandum by the respondent No. 1, No. ND(A) 043683/73...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ520Bom
Rebello, J. 1. All these three petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as in all these three petitions what is impugned, are the orders dated 11th December, 1991 and 23-11-93 of the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority, respectively. 2. Writ petition No. 231 of 1994 has been filed by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (MGKU). The union claim to represents substantial number of workmen employed with respondent No. 1 company. The respondent No. 1 had submitted draft standing orders for certification for the marketing divisions of Bombay area which was wrongly described in the draft submitted, as Bombay area and Marketing Division. Thereafter the Certifying Officer issued notices to various unions including MGKU, which filed its objections to the draft standing orders, on 18th January, 1985. On considering the objections the Certifying Officer was pleased to pass an order certifying the standing orders with modifications by order dated 14th October, 1991. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997CriLJ950; 1997(1)MhLj435
L. Manoharan, J.1. The appellant/accused in Sessions Case No. 130 of 91 of the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal. 2. Accused Laxmandas, brother of D.W. 3 Khilawandas came along with his wife Subhadra from Kertha Bazar, Tahsil Daundi Lohara, District Durg (MP). At the relevant time, accused along with his wife Subhadra was residing at Gopalpuri, Chandrapur. D.W. 3 Khilwandas, his younger brother, also came with him to Chandrapur for work. On 10-1-1991 at about 11.30 p.m. when Subhadra was asleep, accused attacked her with dagger and on that when the blade of dagger broke, he took out axe (Article 1) and hit her on several par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(91)ELT574(Bom)
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The Petitioners imported cloves from Columbo, Ceylon in March, 1983 and filed Bs/E. It is the case of the petitioners that cloves are covered by Chapter 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and are subject to duty under Heading 9.04/10 at a rate of Rs. 60/- per Kg. and it is standard rate of duty. By Notification No. 431/CUS dated 1st November, 1976, as amended, the 1st Respondent exempted, inter alia, cloves, when imported into India from Bangladesh or the Republic of Korea or Sri Lanka, from that portion of the duty of customs specified in the First Schedule as was in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 4 of the said table. Therefore, according to the petitioners the rate of duty of Customs was calculated at the rate of Rs. 20/- per Kg. less 7.1/2%. The petitioners paid accordingly. But doubt was raised by some importers relating to interpretation of the words 'Rs. 20/- per kg. less 7.5%' as to whether the 7.5% was to be treated as 7.5% ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(1997)ACC379; 1997ACJ336; 1997(1)BomCR185; (1996)98BOMLR67; [1996(74)FLR2440]; (1998)IIILLJ955Bom; 1996(2)MhLj435
Tipnis, J. 1. The petitioner has contended that he was a seaman and was in permanent employment of respondents no. 1 & 2. The petitioner has worked as a seaman on several ships for several years. According to the petitioner, during his employment, he was required to go and work for foreign going ships and the last of his such employment was on ship M.V. Okim. According to the petitioner, he was performing hard and strenuous duties for 12 to 13 hours a day. According to the petitioner, he suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and he was declared permanently unfit for duty. He was working on the ship on 16.5.1990 and he suffered severe headache with vomiting. He was hospitalised and suffered a paralytic stroke and his right-side hemiplegia stabilised with nipotony. However, his speech was impaired and he could not speak properly. The petitioner says that he is totally bed-ridden and he is not able to get up or attend to his routine movement. Ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997BomCR(Cri)154
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 27th May, 1982 passed in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1981, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter:(i) Appellant Dattatraya Ramchandra Patil under section 302 I.P.C. to suffer R.I for life; and (ii) Appellant Dadasaheb Anandrao Patil under section 324 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 1 month.Hence this appeal.It may be mentioned that vide the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused Anandrao Ramchandra Patil. 2. The appellants and the acquitted accused on one hand and the prosecution witnesses Shivling Ganpati Patil P.W. 3, Yashwada Hingmire P.W. 9, Subhadra Hingmire P.W. 10 and the deceased Babasaheb Dhondiram Hingmire were residents of a common village viz. Murale. The elections to the Village Panchayat Murale were held about 2 years prior to the incident. Acquitted accused Anandr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)104
ORDERA. KALYANASUNDHARAM, A.M. :These are appeals by two assessees of the same group that involve common issues and, therefore, these appeals have been grouped and are being disposed of by this common order. Three of the common issues involve the identical issues as were considered in the appeals for the asst. yr. 1990-91, namely, violation of principles of natural justice by the Revenue in the framing of the assessments, additions based on the report of auditor M/s Arjun K. S. Aiyar & Co., Chartered Accountants (hereinafter referred to as AKSR) are wholly unjustified and the additions for rights acquisitions of rights shares.2. The appellants had raised an additional ground of appeal that reads, 'the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice issued under s. 148 is bad in law and the consequent assessment is, therefore, also bad in law and void'. The appellants also had challenged the levy of interest under ss. 234A and B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!