Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Mare Walker Opticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide Order No. C-II/WZB/2001 the present applicants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 9,74,643/-. In the proceedings leading to this appeal duty of Rs. 23,24,643/-had been demanded and confirmed on account of the failure of the importers to comply with the conditions of the notification under wich exemption from duty had been grantd. The sum directed by the Tribunal to be dposited was the remainder after encashment of the bank guarantee. In making this order the Tribunal had considered the merits and had specifically mentioned that there was no evidnence whatsoever to support the plea of financial hardship. Time was given up to 14.2.2001 to fulfil the directions. The presents. The Present application states that further sum of Rs.90,000/- has been deposited and seeks waiver of predeposit of the remaining amount. On financial hardship an uncertified copy of the provisional balance sheet as on 31.12.2000 has been placed on record. Shri Uday Joshi Ld. Counsel submits that the ...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Monito Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT595Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Monito Enterprises, the respondent to this appeal imported goods declared to be parts of fuel injection pump. The classification of the gods was claimed under heading 84.13. of the Tariff as parts of pumps.Examination by the department of the goods showed that these were initially the goods put up n sets. The good were described as "overhaul kit for fuel injection pump." As we have an example, the kit spaco 07185 consisted of following items. One number cleaning towel (paper-wet) in a pouch, plastic knobs; wire set with twisted wire, metal rings, metal parts in one pouch; rubber rings, two composite gaskets, two numbers rubber parts in one pouch; metal part in one pouch. Examination of other kits revealed more or less the similar contents.2. The department was of the view that eacg contained in the kit should be assessed on merits separately or alternatively, the assessment should be done under Section 19(b) of the Act. Notice issued to the appellant proposed classification of the ...

M/S. Modern Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for stay of operation of a sum of Rs. 32,000/- towards duty and penalty of rs. 3,47,980.50/-. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture or Nail Polish and Sticker Kumkums falling under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 140/83 dt. 5.5.83. The officers of the department noticed that some time on 20.2.98, certain goods were clandestinely removed through a tempo bearing Registration No. MMS 3565 investigation was started. A resulting in the issuance of the show cause notice dt. 18.8.98 claimed a sum of Rs. 32,980/- towards duty because out of the total demand Rs. 3,47,980/- a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- was paid before the issuance of show cause notice and proposal was also their to impose a penalty of Rs. 3,47,980/-. the show cause notice also proposed to initiate action for confiscation land building etc. Proceeding were also initiated against the Proprietor under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rule...

Monalisa E.D.C. Pvt. 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 duty of Rs. 2,05,092 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the ground that the benefit of notification 16/97 and 8/98 will not be available to portable electric lamps manufactured by it the applicant since it contravened one of the conditions of the notification that modvat credit should not be availed of by the manufacturer of the goods.2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant, that the ratio of the larger bench decision of the Tribunal in Franco Italian Co. Pvt.Ltd vs. CCE Mumbai 2000 (120) ELT 792 applies to this case is not disputed by the departmental representative, who however submits that decision might require reconsideration.3. While taking note of this contention, we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed, and stay their recovery....

M/S. Sm Steel Ropes Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Both sides agreed that in Appeal No. E/2911/2000-Mum, the date of communication is wrongly shown as 4.5.99 in stead of 14.5.99. The appeal is therefore filed in time. On hearing Shri DH Shah for the applicants and Smt. Reena Arya for the Revenue, it appeared that for the reasons stated hereafter, the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for in the application.The appellant company manufactured Wire Ropes. From time to time they had filed declarations as required under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Some goods valued at Rs. 2,15,490/- and Indian Currency of Rs. 3,82,050/- were weized from the office premises and Indian Currency of Rs. 7,19,250/- was seized from the residential premises of the director. On the basis of investigation show cause notice was issued alleging that duty of Rs. 22,44,404/- was not paid by the assessees on clearances made in excess of the duty free clearances permitted under c...

Calico Industrial Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT403Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer if machinery. It filed a classification list for "textile dyeing plant" and "machinery for cutting photographic paper", claiming their classification under heading 8451.10 and 8439.10 respectively of the tariff. Heading 84.51 includes machinery for dyeing fabrics made of textile articles and heading 84.39 is for machinery for making pulp and fibrous cellulosic material or for making or finishing paper or paperboard. It is not in dispute that each of these items of machinery is large and heavy and requires time-eight or nine months-to fabricate. It is contended that the machinery was fabricated, and clearances made, in pursuance of orders for complete machines. The appellant cleared such machinery in parts 2. The department, noting that what was cleared at any one time was parts of such machine, and not a complete machine, did not accept the classification claimed and, by notice issued to the manufacturer, sought to classify the goods as parts, based ...

Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT218Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufactured automobile parts. They received Seamless Tubes and took credit of the duty paid thereupon. these were sent to their job workers in terms of the procedure under Rule 57f (4) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The finished goods were received back After inspection they were cleared on payment of duty utilising the credit taken on the tubes. The price was marked up by the appellants by almost 100% of their cost. In the proceedings leading to the present appeal it was held that the appellants had no facility for manufacture of any parts. Therefore they did not have any claimed to utilise the modvat credit on the inputs. Paragraph 8 of the show cause notice stated as under: "Thus it appears that ISMT had wrongly availed credit of duty on inputs which were not received by them and utilised the same intentionally of payment of duty o n clearances of various finished goods which were not manufactured by the, in total disregard of the provisional of law. It appear...

Babu Bhau Chipre, Since Deceased by His Heir Shri Bhoopal Babu Chipre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom348; (2001)3BOMLR237; 2001(2)MhLj770

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (Amendment and Validation) Act. 1985 and to the notifications issued under section 11(1), 14(1) and 15(1) dated 2.11.1978. 24.12.81 and 29.5.82 respectively under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 and the notification issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Exhibit 'D' and Exhibit 'F' respectively).2. Mr. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the challenge to the Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (Amendment and Validation) Act. 1985. His only contention is that the acquisition of the land admeasuring 81 areas out of Gal No. 575 is notified on the basis that Babu Bhau Chipre held the land admeasuring 4 hectareas and 54 areas; the said Babu Bhau Chipre had executed a registered Will during his l...

Punjaji Dagdu Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)4BOMLR197; 2001(3)MhLj926

R.K. Batta, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates of the parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner was externed under section 56(1) and under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. by order dated 23-3-2000 of respondent No. 2. By the said order, the petitioner, was externed for one year from Buldana district and nearby districts of Akola, Washim, Jalna, Parbhani and Jalgaon. The petitioner challenged the said externment order before the respondent No. 3 in appeal, and respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11th December, 2000 rejected the appeal and confirmed the externment order. The petitioner ; challenges the externment order on the ground that in the show cause notice, there is no averment that witnesses are not coming forward to depose or that they have not lodged the complaint against the petitioner due to fear as also on the ground that though the activity of the petitioner is stated to be restr...

First Flight Courier Ltd. Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR51; 2001(4)BomCR519; [2002]108CompCas568(Bom)

Chandrachud, J. 1. This is a dispute between a courier company and a newspaper publishing entity. The petitioner had provided courier services to the respondent for transportation of the daily editions of its newspapers and of other publications to various destinations. The arrangement commenced sometime in 1993 and upto 30-6-1997, it is common ground that there was a barter arrangement between the parties. According to the petitioner, as of 30-6-1997, there would be a credit of approximately Rs. 45 lakhs in favour of the petitioner as a result of the barter arrangement, under which as against the invoices raised by the petitioner for the transportation of the publications of the respondent, the amounts due would be adjusted by the publication of advertisements for the petitioner in the publications of the respondents. On 9-5-1997, a letter was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent by which a review of the barter arrangement was sought. By its letter, the petitioner sought the ...