Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Dharamsee Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR94; 2002(4)BomCR340

D.B. Bhosale, J.1.The petitioner, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the propriety and validity of the notification issued on 24th April, 1991 by the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board, revising the water rates for bulk non-domestic use from 1st June, 1991 for the various categories of consumers enumerated therein, who are being supplied water from Temghar, Badlapur and Ulhasnagar water works in project area until further orders.2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having their factory at Ambarnath. Respondent No. 2 is the Member Secretary of the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short ,'Board'). The Board has been established under section 3 of the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1976 (for short, 'Act of 1976) in 1976 for the rapid development and proper regulation of the water supply and sewerage services in the State of Maharash...

Sadashiv Mahadeo Kumbhar Vs. Balkrishna Bhikaji Walimbe and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR916; 2002(4)BomCR346

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order, dated 11-6-1987 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in the matter of MRT-NS-VII-10/86 (TNC.B 23/85), Pune whereby the learned member confirmed the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara in Tenancy Appeal No. 34/2982 by holding that in view of the provisions of section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the landlord is also entitled to move an application for reviewing the order passed by the Tribunal in view of section 32-G more particularly sub-section (3) of B.T. & A.L. Act.2. The facts need to be stated for unfolding the matter. Proceedings under section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) started in respect of Suit Survey No. 121/3, 121/4 of Village Kumte, Taluka Satara, District Satara before Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. who passed his final orde...

Lubrizol India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC407

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chemicals additives falling under Chapter 38 of this Schedule to he Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the Course of manufacture of such chemicals, during the process of filtration a waste emerges, viz. "Waste Filtration Cake" (herein after referred as WFC). The appellants, prior to the period under dispute, were dumping such WFC as a land filling and around in the manufacturing premises on removing the same on internal challans.During the period 1994-95 to 1998-99, they located certain industries engaged in treating toxic wastes and invited tenders for clearance of WFC by such industries. WFC was then cleared on their own challans at nil rate of duty to them.2. As per the technical report relied in the notice 33% oil by weight can be extracted from this WFC and it was considered as an excisable product. The appellants contested the same to be non-marketable and non-excisable. The impugned order upheld classification under Heading 3...

Classic Marble and Bono Marble Vs. C.C. (import), Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The ground in each of the applications are identical and reads as follows. "1. The impugned Order-in-Original No. S/10-143/001 dated 30.3.2000 was served on the CHA's clerk in the Custom House. Thereafter the Order remained in the custody of the CHA for a along time. The Order came in the hands of the Applicant only recently. The exact date of service on CHA is not available. 2. As per the date of issue of the Order (7.7.2000) the 3 moths limitation period expired on 7.10.2000. By that reckoning the delay in filing the present Appeal is of 43 days. However, since the Order was actually received by the Applicant very late, there is no delay in filing the present Appeal." 3. In the absence of relevant details and the somewhat vaguely worded application, common counsel for the applicant was asked to file an affidavit indicating the dates received by it or the customs house agent. Applicant is today absent and unrepresented and no affidavit is filed. On the facts of this case, we do no...

Cipla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the finding of the authorities that in its price declaration filed for determining the value of bulk drugs manufactured by it and captively consumed in their factory under Rule 6(b)(ii), the applicant took account of the cost of manufacture of the previous year, which was lower than the cost of raw material.2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that there was no intent to evade duty since the goods were to be consumed by the applicant in another factory and whatever duty was paid in this factory would be available to it in another factory. He relied upon the decision in S.L. Packaging v. CCE 3. The departmental representative contends that the provisions of Rule 173Q(1)(a) relating to removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules would apply to the facts of this case and therefore the intention is immaterial.4. The issues are arguable. We do not find the contention of the depart...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Globe Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by the department is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the fine for redemption of the diesel engine imported by it from Rs. 7 lakhs decided by the Additional Commissioner to Rs. 4.91 lakhs and penalty from Rs. 62,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.2. The application is worded in most general of terms and does not offer any material on the basis of which prima facie view could be held that the Commissioner's order is incorrect. No figures are cited as to the margin of profit or in support of the contention that the Commissioner has not applied appropriate formula (for which no authority is furnished) in arriving at the correct profit. It is not possible for us to say that the decision cited by the counsel for the respondent at this stage relates to the same period and the same rules under consideration. Even despite this, in the total absence of relevant particulars in the stay application, we are unable to entertain it....

Robert A. Copone Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC426

1. The application for bringing on record additional evidence in the form of contract of employment between M/s. Dolce Vita Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant which has been filed to support the plea that the appellant was staying in Indian for more than 1 year and hence entitled to the benefit of Public Notice No. 3(RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 31/3/2000, is allowed.2.The appeal is now taken up for hearing. The Commissioner of Customs, Goa has held that the appellant did not fulfil the conditions stipulated in the Public Notice which permits foreign nationals working in Indian to import vehicles without a specific Import Licence or a Customs Clearance Permit subject to the condition that the contract period for employment or stay of the Importer in Indian shall not be less than 1 year, and hence confiscated 2 cars imported by the appellant with an option to redeem the same on payment of duty amount and fine. He has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 60,000/- upon the appellant. The Commissi...

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC423

1. The above appeal itself is taken up for hearing after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit since the issue is settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sawan Mal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh.I [2001 (42) RLT 75 (CEGAT-L.B)].2. The appellants are manufacturers of hot re-rolled products of non alloy steel by operating a hot steel re-rolling mill. They are liable to pay duty at compounded rates in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the duty is determined depending on the Annual Capacity of Production, or such factors relevant to the annual capacity of production of the factory in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act lay down, how the annual capacity of Hot Re-rolling Mills is to be determined. The appellants opted for payment of duty on compounde...

Chitra Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty liability of Rs. 6,60,220/- (out of which the assessees/applicants have already paid Rs. 1,52,172/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 5,07,948/-) arises as a result of re-fixation of the applicants Annual capacity of production on the basis of formula. The applicants herein had their annual capacity originally determined at 2506.796 Metric Tons in terms of formula contained in Rule 3 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 and the capacity was re-fixed as 2200.411 Metric Tons consequent upon the change of parameters as requested by them. It is on the basis of the change in parameter 'd' that the ACP was re-fixed and duty liability was worked out. The applicants subsequently claimed that the re-fixation itself was wrong, but since they had not applied for change in any other parameters, the Commissioner held that the re-fixation as 2200.414 Metric Tons was correct by change of parameters 'd' only.2. None appears for the applicant in spite of notice; ...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC200

1. The appellants, a Maharashtra State Government Undertaking, in appeal, against rejection of refund claim made by them of duty of excise paid under protest during the period 1/4/90 to 28/2/93.2. The refund was rejected by the Original Authority on the grounds that the Classification List for this period was approved at the higher rate of duty and handed over to the appellants on 1/3/93, and this classification became final in as much as the appellants did not prefer any appeal against the said approval of the classification by the Assistant Collector concerned.3. We have heard both the sides and considered the submissions and find:- (a) The duties in this case during the relevant period, in fact, even the earlier period and subsequent to the period under dispute were paid under the provisions of Rule 233B, i.e. under protest. The appellants were contesting the exchangeability of the product by submitting that their activities do not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act...