Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Gtc Industries Limited, J.P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC180

1. For reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of duty confirmed against M/s. GTC Industries Ltd., and penalties imposed against them as well as on the Chairman, Directors and Officers of the above company and proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. GTC Industries Ltd., a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes on its own account in its units at Mumbai and Baroda, entered into franchise agreement with other companies including M/s. Tamil Nadu Tobacco Company Limited (TTCL) for manufacture of cigarettes out of raw tobacco supplied by them. During the period in dispute, i.e., November, 1990 to March, 1995 the movement of cut tobacco and cigarettes was placed under strict excise control and until October, 1993 the fact is that the suppliers of the cut tobacco were under the physical control system.From October, 1993 till March, 1995 the physical control system was discontinue...

Lacure Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC753

1. Application for retention of this appeal in Mumbai is allowed since the registered office and factory of the applicant is situated within the jurisdiction of the Western Zonal Bench.2. Now we take up the stay application. Duty demand of Rs. 9,47,852/- has been confirmed on quantity of 1250 Kgs. of Riboflavin by denying the benefit in terms of Notification 59/97. The benefit of notification has been denied on the ground that the raw material imported by the applicants cannot be used in the manufacture of vitamins, pro-vitamins or other medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as they are suitable only for use as feed supplements. In addition to the duty amount penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been imposed.3. It is the submission of the applicants that the benefit of notification cannot be denied since under the notification the Assistant Commissioner has to be subsequently satisfied that the goods imported were used in the manufacture of the goods ...

Swem Inds. Vs. C.C. Ex., Surat

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The counsel for the applicant mentioned this case before us to day.He pointed out that while the Tribunal's order dated 6.11.2001 has disposed of the demand of Customs duty as well as Excise duty, what was listed on that date (as item 26 in short matters) was only the application for waiver of deposit of Customs duty, wrongly shown in the cause list (item 26) as an excise application. He says that the order is the common order and separate applications were filed only because the duty was demanded by this order under both the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act. The reasonings of the Commissioner were also common.2. These facts may be true. The fact, however, remains that we have disposed of the application for waiver of deposit of Excise duty without the application filed having been listed. Both sides failed to intimate this point.3. In these circumstances, we recall our order (which has been signed but not issued) and list the applications C/Stay-1833/01 (now corrected) and E...

Berg Trading Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC188

1. This sis an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the applicants herein.2. The penalty arises as a result of confiscation of goods and alleged to have been mis-declared as brass scrap drink instead of brass dross.The import of brass dross required the applicants to possess a valid import licence. It is the contention of the applicants represented by the counsel that the supply of brass dross was a mistake and this aspect was checked up form the suppliers. He further states that the aspect of valuation has not been gone into by the Commissioner and the goods have been absolutely confiscated.3. The prayer of waiver is posed by the learned DR on the ground that this was not a case of mistake but an act of deliberate mis-declaration.4. On hearing both sides and keeping in view the fact that the goods stand absolutely confiscated and that the applicants have already paid duty amount of over Rs. 2 lakhs we waive the pre-deposit...

Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sharad G. Khano ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR306; 2002(3)MhLj794

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. These two Writ Petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Industrial Court declaring that an unfair labour practice had been committed 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 'MRTU AND PULP Act'). 2. Writ Petition 1603 of 1999 has been filed by ECK Haubold and Laxmi Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ECK Haubold'), which is an undertaking covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 manufacturing Calendar Bowls required for the textile mills. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in this petition are workmen, who claim to be employees of ECK Haubold. Respondent No. 6 is Hindustan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. which is a textile mill governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'BIR Act'). Writ Petition No. 1079 of 1999 has been filed by Hindustan Mills against the same workmen who are involved in the other petition. Respondent No. 6...

Kamal Textiles and anr. Vs. Secretary, Lal Bawata General Kamgar Union ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ73Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 347 of 1988. The contention of the petitioner is that the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra in respect of payment of special allowance to the workmen working in the powerloom sector in Ichalkaranji was not applicable to them as they have entered into an agreement in the presence of the Minister of Labour, whereby the petitioners had paid a higher amount to the workmen. 2. The respondents filed a complaint under Section 28 r/w Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practice by failing to implement the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra in 1984 and 1986 regarding payment of special allowance to the workmen employed in the powerloom sector. The complain...

Sudhir B. Shende Vs. Jai Hind Co-op. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR88; 2002(4)BomCR323

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is not an employee under section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'B.I.R. Act').2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as Junior Officer on 10-5-1989 by respondent No. 1- bank. As a Junior Officer, the petitioner was required to perform work of a clerical and skilled nature such as passing of cheques, ledger posting, checking interest calculations, checking the clearance of cheques, to write the scroll, to write day-book, making postings in general ledger and checking the same, preparing trial balance sheets, to maintain liquidity registers, to check postage register, etc. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 13-12-1990. No grounds for termination of service were given to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, file...

Nana Hari Gaikwad and ors. Vs. Badsha Alli Mulla

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR146; 2002(4)BomCR327

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard Shri Hombalkar. By this petition the petitioners are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the members of M.R.T. in the matter of MRT-NS-I-10/83 (TEN.B. 16/83) Pune, dated 24-6-1988. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioners meant for challenging the judgment and order passed by S.D.O. in TNC Appeal No. 115/1981 on 30-4-1982 by which learned S.D.O. had set aside the judgment and order passed by Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. No. 1, Karad. The respondents had moved an application on 1-6-1981 to the Collector, Satara contending therein that they were tenants since long in suit land bearing Survey No. 574/10 (now Survey No. 276/10) admeasuring 35 areas and Survey No. 574/14 (now Survey No. 276/14) admeasuring 13 areas situated within the limits of Karad town. They contended that proceedings under section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture La...

Anant Shripati Kodre Vs. Sukharam Shripati Kodre and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR409

R.J. Kochar, J.1. Joint families most of the times wreck on the rock of the joint familiesproperties. Lis has always been amongst the blood relations-father, sons and brothers in respect of properties. In the present case the original plaintiff is the brother of the original defendants. He filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the properties shown in paragraph 5-a of the plaint, being ancestral lands. According to the plaintiff the other properties shown in paragraphs 5-b and 5-f were purchased from the income from the ancestral lands. The plaintiff has also alleged that the house properties shown in paragraph 5-f and 5-g were also purchased from the income of the joint family property. The defendants 1 and 2 contended that during the life time of Shripati, the father of plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff was given gold and silver in lieu of his share and he decided to quit the family because of domestic quarrels. The defendant...

M.S.R.T.C. Central Workshop Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC84

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 inasmuch 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 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. The...