Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Lokmat Vs. Dnyaneshwar Haribhau Kadu and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR574; 2002(2)BomCR60; [2002(93)FLR538]

P.S. Brahme, J.1. These writ petitions are finally heard with consent of Counsel for the parties. In all these petitions, common question is involved. Therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondents claiming to be the employees of petitioner have filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Nagpur under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act). In these complaints respondents sought the reliefs to grant the status and all other privileges and benefits that are applicable to regular and permanent peons with retrospective effect and in any case from the date on which the complainants completed 240 days of continuous service and to give to the complainants the benefits are made applicable through Palekar & Bachawat Report. These complaints are still pending before the Industrial Court. The petitioner has filed reply to the complaints on 15-7- 1998, wh...

Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC51

1. In these groups of matters, we are concerned with 3 Appeals and one Cross Objection. 2 appeals viz. Appeals Nos. 496/99-Mum and E/1424/2000-Mum have been filed by the assessee and Appeal No.E/195/01-Mum has been filed by the Department by means Central Board of Excise & Customs Review Order dated 6.11.2000. The above Appeals Nos.E/1424/00-Mum and E/195/01-Mum have been filed against Order-in-Original dated 10.1.2000 whereas Appeal No. 496/99-Mum has been filed against Order-in-Original dtd. 3.11.98. Memorandum of Cross Objection No. E/CO-39/01-Mum has been filed by the assessee in Appeal No. E/195/01-Mum filed by the Department.2. By Orders-in-Original dated 12.11.98 and 10.1.2000 the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai VI has held that the assessee who is a manufacturer of synthetic detergents and who is registered as Co-operative Women Society and also registered under Khadi & Village Industries Act 1956, is not entitled to exemption claimed under Notification No. 88/8...

Rajeev Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By order passed on 26.7.2001, after hearing the applicant's counsel, the bench directed deposit of Rs. 2.50 lakhs out of the penalty imposed on the applicant of Rs. 5.00 lakhs.2. Compliance was to be reported to day, but on the counsel for the applicant mentioning that an application for modification has been field in the meantime, we took up the application itself for disposal.The only ground in the application for modification of the order if that the applicant's financial hardship. The applicant, after its resignation from Hi-Tech Drugs Ltd in September, 1997 has been working in various capacities drawing an insubstantial salary. He has deposited Rs. 90,000/-.3. All these facts would no doubt have been within the knowledge of the applicant and therefore of his advocate, when the matte was argued.Counsel for the applicant is not able to explain why financial hardship was not even specified as a ground in the stay applicant in and was not orally raised before the Tribunal. This is...

Garware Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Garware Polyesters Ltd imported consignments described as VMCH. Its claim for exemption contained in notification 47/89 of the product was denied by the Assistant Collector, whose order of adjudication denying such exemption was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), who rejected the importers appeal.2. Subsequently, the importer filed a claim under Section 27 of the Act for refund of the duty, which became due if the notification were available. The Additional Collector rejected this claim on the ground that the issue had been settled by the order of the Collector (Appeals) which it does not appeal and his finding in this regard has bene confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is against that order.3. The appellant is absent despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.4. The contention in the appeal is that, notwithstanding whatever the Commissioner (Appeals) might decide, the appellant is entitled in law to ask for and o...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ajanta Transistor Clock

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT342Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Ajanta Transistor Clock Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter referred to as a First Respondent) is a Partnership Firm with 12 Partners engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of wall clocks. They had been selling the clocks to approximately 70 independent wholesale dealers situated throughout the country. Apart from sales to such wholesale dealers, they had also sold clocks to M/s. Ajanta Sales Agencies (hereinafter referred to as ASA) which is an independent Partnership Firm. The percentage of sales made by the First Respondent to ASA during the period from 1991-92 to 1994-95 are as under:------------------------------------------------------------------------------Year Corrected total Out of that % of Sales to ASA Clearance (SCN) sold to ASA1991-92 108319671 6787672 6.271992-93 224870339 29336895 13.051993-94 431153602 399982556 92.771994-95 613665956 522735264 85.18------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The clocks had been sold by First Resp...

V.S. Dempo and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Goa

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1101Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant took on voyage charter the ship m.v. Tal from its owners for the purpose of transporting iron ore that it mined and sold from Marmagoa to Lisbon. The charter party provided for payment under Clause 37 to the owner of the freight at US$ 8.70 per wet metric ton.Clause 18 provided for a commissioner of 2.5% on the gross amount of freight, dead freight and demurrage to be payable to the charterer, which was deductible from the freight payable by it to the owner. It also provided for payment of commissioner of 1.5% of freight from such payment of Maritime Shipping Bombay, the broker. The charter party also provided despatch money to be kept by the appellant. The contract between the appellant and its buyer was on C & F basis. Therefore, in order to determine the value of the iron ore for the purpose of assessment to export duty leviable on it, freight was required to be deducted.2. The department apparently did not deduct the entire freight arrived at on the basis of U...

Jay Arts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is a concern providing interior decoration and related services. The notice issued to it demanded duty on the furniture, which it alleged, had been manufactured by it, either in the appellant's premises, or at the premises of its customers. The notice enclosed a list of documents that were relied upon in support o the charges in the notice. Among these are records seized from the business premises of the appellant on 28.6.1997.3. In response to the notice, the appellant asked for some clarification relating to the terminology employed in the notice and for copies of the records seized from it in order to enable it to submit its reply of defence. A reminder to this letter elicited supply the department of ten bills of customers. The appellant's representative again repeated its request at the hearing before the Commissioner pointing out that it would not be able to properly reply ...

Gopinath Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 30,000/- demanded on the ground that the goods manufactured by the applicant were not parts of steriliser as claimed by it, but furniture classifiable under hading 94.03 of the tariff.2. The counsel for the applicant says that these goods are trollys designed to contain bottles, bags etc required to be sterilised. They are therefore part of a steriliser in which case the higher duty will not be payable.3. We are unable prima facie to accept this contention. The counsel for the applicant accepts that it does not manufacture sterilisers or supply the goods to the steriliser manufacturer. Applicant supplies its goods to pharmaceutical companies which use them for sterilising the products that they make. Prima facie therefore the goods would not be part of a steriliser and the classification arrived at, as furniture appears prima facie correct.4. In these circumstances, we dismiss the application for waiver of deposit and direct d...

Mrf Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the claim for refund of the service tax paid by the appellant and ordered to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that it has not been shown as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which is made applicable to the Service Tax in question by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 which levy the tax) that the incidence of the tax claimed as refund has not been passed on. On appeal from this order the Commissioner (Appeals) the appeal to be not maintainable by virtue of provisions of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act validating with retrospective effect the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 requiring service tax will be paid by the users of the transporter. The appeal has become infructuous.3. It is contended in the appeal that writ petitions of various parties one of which U.P. State Sugar Corporation challenging the retrospective effect has been admitted by the Court. The fact of admission of a ...

Roofit Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT541Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal and stay application arises out of the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kandla who has upheld the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Customs classifying the products imported by the applicants herein under heading 3214.90 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as non-refractory surfacing materials, rejecting the claim of the importers for classification as plasters of calcined gypsum under heading 2520.90.2. The prayer in the stay application is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty of Rs. 18,48,548/- and stay of encashment of bank guarantees covering the entire duty amount which were initially valid till 30th September, 2001 and which have been subsequently renewed.4. The imported goods were declared as plaster grey, plaster white, easy render, thick render, silk finish grey, silk finish white, one hour fix, grey and were tested and found to be composed of sand cement, calcium carbonate and small amount of ad...