Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Priya Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT299Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92 for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods, thus contravening one of the conditions subject to which the exemption contained in the notification was availed of.3. It was the contention of the importer, that it had reversed the modvat credit along with the interest payable therein in accordance with the provisions contained in the letter of the Government of India obtaining an amnesty for persons who had taken therein and had subjected to providing for reversing the credit before 31.197. It had produced a certificate of the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise in support. The Commissioner had declined to consider this claim on his perception that the AR4A, which referred to modvat credit having been reversed did not bear the number of the shipping bill under which the goods were export...

Podar Mills (Process House) Vs. Kamlakar Ganpat Sawant

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1004]; (2002)IILLJ191Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal impugns the order of the learned single Judge which modifies the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court by awarding the Respondent Workman reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages. The Respondent was employed with the Appellant Mill from March 19, 1973 as a Maintenance Fitter. On March 31, 1993 a police complaint was lodged against the Respondent as it was found that he had stolen brass piece weighing one and half kilograms and had concealed it in his lunch box while leaving the Mill premises. A charge-sheet was issued to the Respondent workman on April 5, 1993 alleging that he had committed misconduct under Certified Standing Order 21(d) as applicable to him. A domestic inquiry was held against the Respondent and the Inquiry Officer found the Respondent guilty of misconduct and, therefore, the services of the Respondent were terminated on October 14, 1994 by way of dismissal.2. Being aggrieved by this dism...

Antonio Filipe Faleiro Vs. Smt. Sandra Faleiro

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2002)DMC58

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.2. Admit. By consent, taken up for final hearing.3. In this appeal, the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit with costs is impugned, inter alia, on the following grounds :(1) that the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the suit after rejecting the plaint and hence the judgment and decree is illegal and bad in law; and(2) that the provisions of Para 4 of Article 4 of the Law of Divorce are directory and not mandatory as the requirement of examining experts and prior examination under Article 247 or 260 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1910 would be an exercise in futility.4. It is also submitted that the said Articles 247 and 260 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1910 (Portuguese) are not applicable as the said provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are repealed.5. The impugned order and decree has been passed in t...

Mottammed Yusuf Mohammed Sharif Rahimi and KamaluddIn Tambillebbe Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(82)ECC279

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Appeal No. 323 of 1999 is filed by original accused No. 1 and appeal No. 336 of 1999 is filed by original accused No. 2. Both these accused have been convicted by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, vide his judgment dated 28.4.1999 under the NDPS Act separately and individually and have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years on each count and fine of Rs. one lakh or in default to suffer R.I. for four months on each count. These two appeals have been filed against the said judgment of conviction.2. The prosecution case, in short, was that the Narcotic Cell, CB CID, Mumbai on specific information laid a trap at the entrance of Sion Hindu Cemetery, on the corner of Sion Dharavi Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Dharavi, Mumbai around 12.30 p.m. on 1.1.1998. At about 14.25 hours accused No. 2 Kamaluddin came there and stood at the corner of Sion Dharavi Bridge near the entrance of the cemetery. He was seen waiting for somebody. After ten minutes, accused No. 1 Mohammed Yu...

Mahalakshmi Tiles and Marble Co. P. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT191Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of marble blocks of Turkish origin weighing 203.50 MT and claimed clearance against advance licences. The actual weight was found to be 303.675 MT on examination and it was found that the goods were not covered under the advance licences. Therefore show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act and proposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. The Commissioner vide order dated 24/03/1998 confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 70,50,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the importers.2. Another consignment declared as weighing 23.5 MT of marble blocks of Turkish origin was also imported by the appellants and clearance claimed against advance licences. The actual weight was found to be 27.61 MT and the goods were found to be not covered under the advance licence. Hence a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscati...

A. Sivan Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is for waiver of pe-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 7,31,04,575/- and penalty totally amounting to Rs. 9,52,49,392.83.These penalties are imposed on proprietary units of which the applicant Shri A Sivan is the common proprietor. The duty was confirmed on the goods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty and also on the goods cleared under exemption notification to which they were not entitled.2. In the said application it is claimed that the applicant has no money. An affidavit to that effect has also been filed. Counsel for the applicant submits that the factory of the applicant was attached by the department under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that there are no other properties capable of being attached. He, however, submits that the applicant has no objection to the department locating any property for attaching or to the disposal of the properties already under attachment. The current balance sheet is also filed showing assets which c...

The Simplex Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC799

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of various types of yarns and fabrics falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item 18A, 18-III, 18E as well as cotton fabrics falling under Tariff Item 22 of the schedule to the erstwhile tariff. During the period in dispute, namely, May, 1981 to April, 1984 they cleared yarn manufactured by them in their composite textile mill for captive consumption within the same premises. The classification list filed by them claiming nil rate of duty was rejected by the department. Subsequently the appellant filed a writ petition 1064 of 1981 in the Delhi High Court challenging the levy and the High Court passed an interim order on 08/05/1981 staying the recovery of the disputed excise duty subject to the appellant giving a bond to pay the disputed duty supported by a bank guarantee.2. On 20^th February, 1982 Rule 9 and Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules were amended retrospectively and in the challenge to t...

Sonnenflex Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT165Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 25.37 lakhs approx and penalty of equivalent amount.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the ground that abrasive wheels that the applicant manufactures are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 1/93 for the reason that they had affixed on them a label which contain the brand name of a German company which is not entitled to the benefit of the notification.4. The labels on the product that the applicant made described them as "Sonnenflex Abrasives" indicating thereafter the model number of the abrasive, such as "AS 23 PB". The label bore on it the logo of a black circle enclosing a toothed wheel. The label also bore "Made in India Technical Collaboration with Sonnenflex, West Germany." In his order, the Commissioner says that "Sonnenflex" is a brand name of Sonnenflex Schleifmittelwerk, West Germany. He says that "even though the logo of the Germany company may or may not have...

Regency Exim House Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The reason advanced for the delay of 170 days in filing this appeal is that the applicant was under the impression that the appeal filed by Almighty Shipping Corporation would suffice and it subsequently learned that it has to file an appeal and filed the appeal. The circumstances, as to when and how this knowledge was obtained and why it could not have been obtained earlier have not been explained.2. We do not find the explanation sufficient to condone the delay and dismiss the application....

Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT158Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The main issue in this appeal is the quantum of fine to be borne by the marble imported by the present appellants. The fact that the goods were restricted import and that the appellants did not possess a specific authority to import the same is not contested. One of the issue agitated is the quantum of fine. The other issue in agitation is the enhancement of the declared value.2. The appellants imported rough marble blocks of Iranian origin of various colours. The net weight declared was 1941.34 MTs. The customs adopted the gross weight of 2078.26 MTs. The value declared was US$ 75/- PMT. This was enhanced by the Commissioner to US$ 85/- PMT. The show cause notice alleged that the value should have been US$ 85/- CIF "upon enquiries made with various Custom House". In paragraph 3.0 of his order the Commissioner reiterated the allegation. He also held that "similar cargo was cleared from the CSF Pune" during the relevant period on the proposed enhanced value. On this ground he justif...