Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

H.P.C.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC121Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant received in its factory various items of capital goods in April, May and June 1994. It did not file the declaration specified in Rule 57T in December 1994. Notice was issued to the appellant, proposing to deny the credit on this ground. After considering the reply filed by it, the Commissioner passed orders holding that since the capital goods were not declared to the department within the period provided in the rules, the appellant could not take credit of the duty paid on the goods. Hence this appeal.3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that, subsequent to the period with which we are concerned, Sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T was put on the statute book on 9.2.1999. This sub-rule provides that credit shall not be denied on the ground that if the declaration filed under Sub-rule (1) does not contain all the particulars required to be contained therein, or the manufacturer fails to comply with any other requirement of Sub-rule (1). The department's instruc...

Jyoti Structures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty and penalty as ordered by him on the stay application filed by the appellant before him.2. The original authority has demanded the duty on the bolts and nuts that the applicant purchased from outside and supplied to the buyers of the parts of electrical transmission towers in order for these to be assembled and erected at site. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that no duty is payable upon bought out item that it did not manufacture is prima facie acceptable.3. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allow the appeal and restore the appeal to him for disposal on merits, without insisting on any deposit, in due course....

iveon Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty and penalty.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the discount that the applicant gave to one of its buyers for the sale of ciprofloxacin manufactured by it is not permissible. One of the grounds that had been raised before the adjudicating authority was that the demand was barred by limitation, since the fact of the discount had been disclosed in the price list which was submitted to the department and approved by it.The Additional Commissioner says that the extended period would be available for the reason that the circumstances leading to the discount were not communicated. It is prima facie difficult to justify his view.Once the fact of the discount known to the department it was open to it - indeed required of it - to verify the circumstances leading to the discount. On the basis of it, therefore, we find that the extended period would not apply.3. It would then fol...

Madhukar Vishwanath Sonawane Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj414

R.K. Batta, J.1. On 15-11-1977, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred as complainant) had filed a complaint against respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred as original accused) under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976. The present applicant was a witness in the said case. The police had, after investigation into the said complaint, sent official report requesting for 'A' Summary. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the same to S.D.P.O., Yavatmal for his recommendations upon which the police requested for 'C' Summary. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the said report and took cognizance of the offence. The private complaint filed by complainant Anand Wasekar was registered as Criminal Case No. 630/1978 and the police case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1321 of 1978. Both the said cases were consolidated. After trial, the Magistrate ordered acquittal of the original accused Shankar Jadhav. The original accused thereafter filed an application under ...

Association of Engineering Workers, Mumbai Vs. A.T.V. Limited, Mumbai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR51; [2002(93)FLR528]; 2002(2)MhLj419

P.V. Kakade, J.1. The petitioner has aimed this writ petition against the impugned order dated 19-6-1998 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No. 308 of 1985 of the petitioner.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the record including the documents annexed to the petition.The facts giving rise to the dispute, in brief, are thus :--The petitioner Association of Engineering Workers filed the complaint alleging that the respondent No. 1 Company had indulged in unfair labour practices. The management of the respondent No. 1 Company called the union activists and tried to persuade them not to join the complainant union when the management had come to know that the employees were trying to join the complainant union. Management also allegedly threatened the employees with dismissal from service. It was also alleged that the management had threatened the employees with locking them out or closing down the undertaking if the said ...

Pyloff Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(142)ELT31(Bom)

ORDER1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.2. The challenge is to the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) directing pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and 50% of the penalty within 15 days. Mr. Patel contended that the appellant authority failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that there was total violation of the principles of natural justice by the adjudicating authority. He contended that the adjudicating authority gave hearing only in respect of the show cause notice dated 2nd May, 1994 but while passing the order he covered all the 21 show cause notices. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India 1998 (103) E.L.T. 5. The learned Counsel also made a grievance that the submission made by the company regarding its financial difficulties was not properly appreciated by the authority. We find some merit in the submission of Mr. Patel. In our opin...

Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T. Corporation Vs. M.N. Vijapure

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR392

J.G. Chitre, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, the Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T. Corporation, Solapur Division, Solapur is taking exception to the judgment and Award passed by Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Solapur in the matter of Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 13 of 1986 wherein the learned Court while entertaining the said complaint filed by the respondent held that the present petitioner was guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience).2. Few facts need to be stated for understanding the controversy and the grievance raised before the Industrial Court. The present respondent was medically examined on 6-10-1981 by Medical Officer of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for convenience) and the said Medical Officer declared him as unfit for the job of 'dri...

The Premier Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Pashabhai Patel and Company ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR588

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of together by a common judgment as the issues involved are common and arise out of derivative proceedings during the execution of the decree passed in favour of the Petitioners in R. A. E. & R, Suit No. 928/5431 of 1977.2. The Petitioners are the owners and landlords of building known as 'Construction House' at Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. The Petitioners filed suit for eviction against the respondent No. 1 - tenant in respect of the demised premises, being R. A. E. & R. Suit No. 928/5431 of 1977. The said suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court on 17th February, 1992 directing the respondent No. 1 to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the Petitioners. The respondent. No. 1, however, carried the matter in appeal, which appeal was rejected by the Appellate Bench on 30th April, 1993. Against this order the respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition under Article 227 of...

Shiv Shakti Steel Re-rolling Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant seeks decision on merits of the stay application filed for waiver of pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 31,661/- arising as a result of determination of the annual production capacity of re-rolling mills.It is the contention of the applicant that since they had surrendered their earlier registration and changed their name, the old or former determination of the APC should not be held against them and they are entitled to have their annual production capacity re-determined.2. On hearing the Id. department representative and perusing the impugned order, we find that there is no case made out for wavier of predeposit since the Commissioner has correctly held that the applicant does not lose the identity of the said old unit and cannot be considered as a new unit merely because of the change in the name, so as to seek redetermination. We, therefore, direct the applicant to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing whi...

Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT923Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed on the applicant of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the applicant under Clause (a) and (o) of Section 111 of the Act and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation.2. So far as the first penalty is concerned, the Commissioner has found that rule framed in Section 133 of the Drugs an Cosmetics Act, 1945 prohibited import of cosmetics, (which is what the applicant imported) except to the port specified therein and Kandla is not one of these ports. Hence he invoked Clause (a) of Section 111. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that assuming that contravention of this rule has taken place, it will not attract the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 111. That clause will only apply to goods which are imported or attempted to be imported at any place other than a customs port appointed under Section 7 of the Act. We prima facie find this argument acceptable. Without going to the question of possible contravent...