Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

The Newsprint Trading and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal field before him.2. This appeal is against various orders of the Asst. Collector of Customs in charge of the Disposal Section of Custom House. The dispute relates to the correctness of the price at which the various consignments of newsprint were sold in the court of auction by the custom house to the appellant. The appellant's contention seems to be that the price at which the goods were sold is incorrect.3. Doubtless, the goods were sold in pursuance of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. However, the modalities of the transaction sale between the custom house and the buyer are not governed by the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. They appear to be in the nature of contractual obligation. Therefore we are at a loss to understand how the Collector (Appeals) entertained these appeals at all. Further, the order, which was appealed to the Collector (Appeals) itself pose no grievance to the app...

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. N.S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT702Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.08 crores and penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs on NS Patel, director finance of the manufacturer.2. Elecon Engineering, the manufacturer was awarded on 5.5.98 a contract by Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB for short) for setting up a coal handling plant in a thermal electricity generation station which the letter was setting at Chandrapur. By a certificate dated 6.1.98 it had been informed by MSEB that the project was funded by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank. Notification 108/95 exempts goods supplied to such project. The manufacturer intimated the department of its proposal to avail of the notification and cleared between June 1998 to December 1999 various consignments without payment of duty in terms of notification.3. By 22.10.96 the World Bank had suspended the loan to MSEB apparently because some of the conditions on which l...

Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT673Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By his order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the classification determined by the Deputy Commissioner of the drive shafts manufactured by the appellant, which transmit power to the industrial fans manufactured by it, under heading 84.83 of the tariff as transmission shafts, and his finding that the show cause notice dated 28-9-1992, demanding duty for the period September, 1987 to February, 1992 rightly invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act.2. Mr. Prakash Shah, counsel for the appellant, does not press the ground in the appeal relating to classification of the goods and agrees that they should rightly be classifiable as transmission shafts. He, however, disputes the applicability of the extended period. In the classification list submitted by the appellant to the Assistant Collector in 1988, the goods were specifically described as "drive shafts for industrial fans", although classifica...

Anchor Pipe Works, Anchor Vs. Commissioner of Center Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common advocate for these four appellants seeks withdrawal of the 12 appeals on the ground that in the light of development which have taken subsequently since the issue is only of academic relevance.2. The departmental representative has no objection. appeals are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn....

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking. In terms of the Supreme Court decision in the case of ONGC Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1992(61) ELT 3 (S.C.) they were required to file a clearance from the Committee of Secretaries. The appeal was filed on 19.5.2000.On two occasion the directions were made for filing of the certificate.In November 2000 the submissions was made by the appellants that they were in the process of getting the certificate. On three occasions when the case was posted for hearing, none appeared. In this circumstance we dismiss the appeal giving liberty to the appellants to seek revival on receipt of the requisite certificate....

Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have heard the departmental representative.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai against the order of the Asst. Commissioner finalising the classification of the goods, denying the benefit of exemption notification claimed by the manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals) has said that the Asst. Commissioner had relied upon the order passed by the same Commissioner earlier. he had therefore said that it was not proper for him to hear the appeal and citing the decision of the Tribunal in Sheila Foam Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 1993 (63) ELT 395 said that the correct course for the manufacturer was to appeal the final appeal to the Tribunal.3. If, for whatever reason, the Commissioner (Appeals) felt it was not proper for him to entertain the matter (of which he is the best judge) it was not correct for him to in fact send the matter up to the Tribunal. He should have approached his superior authority to have the appeal t...

Pennar Industries Ltd. Vs. Dynamic Logistics (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR757; 2001(3)BomCR735

Chandrachud, J.1. In pursuance of purchase orders by the respondent, a contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for the construction of warehouses. The details of the 16 purchase orders have been annexed to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner. There were amounts due and owing by the respondent to the petitioner. On 29-1-1998, the company citing its financial difficulties sought some time to pay the dues of the petitioner. The company stated that it was expecting the disbursement of funds from the financial institutions including amongst them ICICI and IDBI upon which the dues of the petitioner would be cleared. The company had issued three cheques in the amount of Rs. 1.47 crores, Rs, 98 lakhs and Rs. 49 lakhs amounting to Rs. 2.94 crores to the petitioner. These cheques were returned on 28-9-1996 by the bankers of the petitioner on the ground of an insufficiency of funds. On 9-10-1998, the petitioner adverting to the return of the cheques called ...

Narayan Ganpat Wadekar Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR323; 2001CriLJ4810; 2001(2)MhLj846

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner who describes himself as the brother-in-lawof the detenu Vishwa alias Vishwanath Balkrishna Pujari has impugned the detention order dated 29.7.2000, passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996), hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P.D.A. Act').The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 29.7.2000, was served on the detenu on 7.8.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. viz. C. R. No. 59/2000 under Sections 387, 34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3, ...

Dr. Rupali Dhurv Hankre and Etc. Vs. College of Physician and Surgeons ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom354; 2001(4)BomCR216; (2002)1BOMLR83

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. First three of these petitions are filed by the students who have completed their M.B.B.S. In January, 2000 from the Mumbai University. They are students of the 2nd respondent Medical College and hospital which is run by the Thane Municipal Corporation. The 4th petitioner has done MBBS from Pune University. The 2nd respondent-hospital gave an advertisement for enrolling admissions to post-graduate diploma courses which were to begin from 1st Feb., 2001. Since the petitions are challenging selections by the respondent No. 2 and since the courses were to begin from 1st Feb., 2001, we are hearing these petitions finally at the admission stage itself. We have, therefore, heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents at length and perused the material on the record including files and charts madeavailable by Mr. Ram Aptc, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. The courses for which applications were invited and the number of posts under th...

Agromore (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chembond Chemicals Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR711; 2002(5)BomCR392; (2002)1BOMLR853; 2002(25)PTC532(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a Notice of Motion taken out by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has filed this suit claiming therein that it is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and that it carries on business of the manufacture and sale of wide range of Industrial and Agro Chemical products and in export market. The Plaintiff claims that it is leading and well-known manufacturer and dealer in wide range of Industrial and Agro Chemical products and are carrying on business for the last nearly 4 decades throughout the country and in export markets. It claims that it is manufacturing and marketing their products under the distinctive trade-mark. It claims that it has 90 products. It claims that the annual sale turnover of all the products of the Plaintiff during the last ten year ranges between Rs. 1.45 crores and Rs. 2.58 crores respectively. It is claiming that one of the Industrial Chemical Products of the Plaintiff; is manufactured and marketed by them under the trade mark RODI...