Mumbai Court January 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Coates of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC144

1. Adjournment is requested on the ground that the appellant's representative has to attend to a very important personal hearing before the Delhi Tribunal. To this Tribunal, each appeal is as important as anything. It is accepted the counsel took up the matter the same day. The date for hearing was fixed for hearing on 23.7.99. It is clear that the Delhi Tribunal has fixed its hearing subsequently. I therefore see no reason to adjourn. Therefore Shri John Creado agreed to represent the respondent.2. I have heard the departmental representative and Mr. John Creado of the respondent. The respondent is a manufacture of printing ink. Some consignment of printing ink is sold by applicant returned on there being found defective and hence unusable. Such defective ink is added by the respondent in the fresh batches manufactured out of which finally further batches of ink emerges. The respondent took credit on the defective ink which was returned by the customer and utilized credit towards pay...

Ramesh Mangilal JaIn Vs. Cc (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(93)LC94Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Act.3. The penalty was imposed on the finding of the Additional Collector that the appellant was the owner of the silver which was liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. The silver itself of which there is no claimant in the proceedings was seized from the premises of M/s Ardeshwar Mahdeo Steel, 11/2 lane Kamathipura in which at that point was occupied by Bhagwanji Purohit. Purohit, in his statement immediately after the seizure, said that the silver was brought and deposited on 13.8.1992 by someone whose name and address was not known to him. He said that he had received the silver for cutting into pieces for a consideration of Rs. 40/-. In a second statement recorded two days later, Purohit said that the silver was given to him by Ramesh Jain, who according to him, "35-36 years of age, is rather tall and of wheatis...

Cc Vs. Mahnot Stainless Steel Inds. Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(93)LC200Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We are concerned in this appeal of the value of the Imco brand nickel square imported by the respondent to this appeal. This application is by the department questioning the legality and propriety of the Collector (Appeals) holding that it is the price in the contract between the seller and the buyer of the goods which should form basis of the assessable value.3. The contention of the departmental representative that, by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Knitting Mills v. CCE (sic) CC , if the price at which such or like goods were sold that would be the assessable value, has to be accepted. The Supreme Court had held that Section 12(1)(a)(sic) 14(1)(a) of the Act provides that the relevant date for valuation of goods is the date of importation or exportation and that the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the goods on this date that should be applied, and not the price on the date mentioned in the contract for supply of the goods. Accordingly the...

S. Rajendra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT358Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of deposit of duty demanded from M/s.Neesha Plast Inds. (Neesha for short) and Ashish & Co. (applicant in application 2652 & 2653/99 respectively) of Rs. 19.85 lakhs penalty and Rs. 5 lakhs on each of these 2 applicants and Rs. 5 lakhs on Lalit B.Ravani (application 2651/99) and Rs. 1 lakh on S. Rajendra & Co.(application 1617/99) of penalty under Section 112.3. The duty has been demanded, penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner on the 7 consignment imported by Neesha and 2 imported by Ashish are not lining material and hence not covered by the advance licence produced and not eligible for notification 203/92 for duty free clearance under such notification. The contention of the advocate for these applicants on merits is that the goods are usable as lining, for which it relies upon its test report by the Deputy Chief Chemist where it used such material of the imported fabrics as lining in hand gloves, suitcases, handbags is indicat...

JaIn Brothers Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(92)LC386Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this party's appeal, the relief sought for is set aside the penalty imposed and reduce the redemption fine as per the precedent decisions of the Tribunal, which were brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) AIRport, Mumbai but were not properly considered. Since the matter is covered, the appeal itself is taken up.2. The facts in brief are, that the appellant imported professional video equipment i.e. 3 sets of professional monitors for studio use (Sony PVA, 6030 ME), 3 sets of Sony PVM 2130 with the speakers (professional reonitor for studio use) one set of digital time base corrector and one set of video computer graphic system, amiga 3000 with monitor and other accessories totally valued Rs. 3,14,105/- CIF and sought clearance against the replenishment licence dated 29.12.1989 No.P/L/3364134 under flexibility provisions of paragraph 177 of the Import Export Policy of 1988-91. The department was of the view that the consignment had not been imported against the impo...

Shri Prakash Shankarrao Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR643; 2000BomCR(Cri)643; (2000)2BOMLR98; 2000CriLJ2110

ORDERD.G. Deshpande1. Heard Mr. Nigot for the appellant and APP for the state.2. Appellant- accused who was convicted by the Special Judge, Pune, for offence under section 161 of the I.P.C. and under section 5(2) r.w section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months on each counts.3. As per the prosecution case the appellant accused at the relevant time i.e on 16-6-1987 was an employee of Pune University. The complainant P.W. I Gopal Narsinha Rao, who hails from Andhra Pradesh came to Pune for admission of M.B.A, course. He appeared for the interview and group discussion on 14-6-1987 and thereafter met the accused, on being informed by one Chandrahas. Whereupon, the accused demanded Rs. 20,000/- for securing admission to M.B.A. course. The complainant was not in a position to pay Rs. 20,000/- therefore accused demanded Rs. 2,000/-. This demand was made on 15-6-...

SadruddIn Mohamed HuseIn Jundah Shah Vs. D.C.B. Cid, Narcotic Cell, Az ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000CriLJ2329

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 3-11-1995 passed by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act, for Greater Bombay, in NDPS Case No. 1444 of 1990 convicting and sentencing him to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) in default to suffer imprisonment for two years, under Section 21 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (also referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act).In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-On 13th October, 1990, P.I. Alimulla Akbar Ali Khan PW 3 was attached to the Narcotic cell, Azad Maidan Unit, Mumbai. P.I. Shafiq Pathan, PSI's Chaugule, Kachre and Lugde were also attached to the said unit. At about 11 a.m. while they were on duty, in the office, one of the informant of P.I. Shafiq Pathan informed P.I. Alimulla Akbar Ali Khan PW 3 that one Tanzanian National, aged 50 years, tall in height was about to make narcotic transaction i...

Cc Vs. P.R. Kulkarni

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(93)LC177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By this appeal, the department seeks to question the finding of the Collector (Appeals), who in turn confirmed the findings of the Additional Collector that the respondent was not liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Act.2. The notice issued to the respondent proposed imposition of penalty on the ground that, while working as a Custom officer in the clearance of passengers at Sahar Airport, he colluded in clearing gold approximately weighing 466.6 gms each imported by five passengers. The Additional Collector, who adjudicated on the notice issued to the appellant, these passengers and other persons who were alleged to be involved in the importation, found that there was no evidence that the respondent was to help the passengers by going out of his way; or that he had allowed the clearance knowing that the gold was concealed in the brief cases of the passengers. Appropriate duty had been charged on the baggages brought by the passengers. He therefore exonerated this respondent...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Amforge Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The main issue in this appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s directions to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee deduction of sales tax and excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,80,288 and Rs. 13,28,364 respectively.2. The facts of the case leading to this appeal, in brief, are that in the return of income the assessee claimed deduction of the above amounts though the same had not been debited to the Profit & Loss Account. The assessee argued that as per section 43B the deduction was allowable on cash basis unlike mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee. As the assessee had made the above mentioned payments by way of advance, he had claimed deduction on the ground of actual payment. The learned Assessing Officer did not accept this contention of the assessee-company because, according to him, no liability had accrued in the relevant previous year in respect of these amounts. He, therefore, disallowed t...

Mrs. Nandini NitIn Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR98; 2000(3)BomCR94; (2000)2BOMLR180; [2000(86)FLR280]; (2000)IILLJ1253Bom; 2000(3)MhLj367

ORDERV.C. Daga, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 2 is the Overseas Employment and Export Promotion Corporation of Maharashtra. Petitioner was employed in the services of respondent No. 2 as Executive Officer from 6th January, 1984. Some time in the month of August 1988, Respondent No. 2 took a decision to introduce voluntary retirement scheme (VRS for short) for the employees including officers of respondent No. 2 Corporation as the respondent Corporation was facing acute financial crisis. The respondent No. 2, therefore, by a Circular dated 22nd August, 1988 announced the voluntary retirement scheme and called upon the officers and employees to accept the voluntary retirement so as to enable the Corporation to overcome financial crisis.2. The Circular dated 22nd August, 1988 did not contain attractive voluntary retirement scheme and ...