Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

imtiyaz Pothyawala, Bakhir Abbas Vs. C.C., Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant absent and unrepresented. The notice issued to Imtiyaz Pothiawala has been returned with the endorsement "left" and of Bashir Abbas Kadri "not known". Copies of the notices were sent as requested by them to their advocate. There being no evidence of compliance with the stay order, the appeals are dismissed....

Maharashtra Pencil Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Counsel for the appellant submits a copy for the certificate issued by the designated authority under the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, 1998 showing full and final settlement of the disputed amount....

M/S. Sanimeco Engineers and M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals arise out of the same order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. they were posted for final disposal today.2. Shri J.C. Patel showed us a certificate dated 23.3.99 made by the Commissioner, Vadodara under Rule 5(a) of the KVSS, 1998 whereby immunity has been granted to M/s. Sanimeco Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in appeal No. E/1116/96. Appellant in Appeal No. E/1136/96/BOM was a co-notice and in terms of the Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Tom K. Thomas vs. Union of India OP No. 63/4 of 99 the benefits should extend to the co-notice also. This decision was followed in Appeal No. C/92/96 (Devrajit Bhal vs. CC) In view of this, he submits that the appeals become infructous.3. We have examined the documents furnished as also the judgement and find that the satisfaction has been derived by both the appellants under KVSS 1998. As per the request of the advocate, these appeals are dismissed as infructuous....

M/S Indore Cancer Foundation Vs. C.C., Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application filed by the applicant now before us was dismissed as unnecessary for the reason that the duty had not been quantified in the order impugned before it. This application seeks restoration on the ground that the duty has been subsequently quantified. However, it does not appear that addendum issued to the Commissioner's order has been filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, while we dismiss the application, we leave it open to the applicant to file, if it considers necessary, another application as and when it receive the addendum in due course....

Power Build Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT834Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to Power Build Limited, the appellant before us, on the ground that advertising expenses incurred by it, which was reimbursed to it by buyers of the goods manufactured by should from part of their assessable value. He has also imposed penalty on the appellant.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented a despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. The contention in the appeal is that the conclusion of the Commissioner that the income shown as "Other income" in the balance sheet is not the expenses reimbursed from the customers for advertising but for other services.4. There cannot be any dispute that the cost incurred by the manufacturer towards advertising of the goods manufactured by him is includable in the assessable value. This has been laid down the Supreme Court International Ltd.1983 (14) ELT 1896. Such cost would normally b...

M/S. K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides it appeared that the issue being capable of settlement, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of predeposit of Rs. 5,05,676.16 confirmed as duty and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The appellants imported goods free of duty in terms of Not NO.203/92-CUS. Show cause notice was issued alleging that in the export products input duty credit has been availed of. Customs duty leviable on goods were demanded. The Commissioner passed the ex-parte order mentioned that the importers had not filed any reply to the show cause notice nor had they appeared for the personal hearing. On his confirming the duty and imposing penalty as stated above, this appeal has been filed.3. Reliance is placed on Tribunal's order No. C.I/877/WZB/2000 dtd.2.3.2000 in support of the submission that demand was hit by limitation in as much as the show cause notice died not allege suppression etc. It is claimed that the failure to reply to the show cau...

M/S. Unirose Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application, we find it proper to take up the appeal itself for disposal by granting waiver of predeposit of Rs.3,21,750/- confirmed as duty and equal amount penalty imposed.2. The appellants were operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 issued under Notification No.42/98-CE(NT). Explanation (1) there to reads as under:- "For the purposes of this notification, a float drying machine or any other equipment of a length 3.05 metres installed in or attached to a stenter for aiding the process of heat setting or drying of the fabrics shall be deemed to be one chamber of a stenter and any faction of such length shall be computed on a pro-rata basis." 3. In the present case, the determination was done by counting the vail length of galleries in computing the capacity of the stenter. This is apparent from Asstt. Commissioner's letter F.No.VGN(30)87/IA/98 dated 17.6.99. A number of judg...

M/S. Bharat Gears Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in the appeal and the stay application is the capacity of job worker operating under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to take credit on the inputs utilised by him in the conversion of the raw material received from a principal manufacturer. Admittedly, the job worker has not taken the credit on the inputs received by him.Admittedly also, the liability to pay duty after the completion of the job work on the product (where the product is dutiable) is not upon him.2. The applicants manufactured automotive gears. Some of the gears were sold by them in the market. Some other gears are made by them on job work basis where all the inputs are procured by them. In that situation, discharging the burden of duty on clearance of the final product, taking credit of the input duty including those received by them from the principal manufacturer alongwith the modvatable documents vests upon them. They are also engaged in conversion of raw materials received by them from the...

Tulsidas P. Kheraj and anr. Vs. Association of Engineering Workers and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR79; (2001)3BOMLR395; (2002)IVLLJ941Bom; 2001(3)MhLj572

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J. 1. This petition reflects how the process of law and the Court can be abused to harass a party which is ex facie neither necessary nor a proper party to the litigation in the form of complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 Union under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P, Act, 1971 under items 1(b) and 2(a) of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 filed against only one M/s. Salvi Super the employer of the employees who were represented by the Complainant-Union, Respondent No. 1 in the present Petition. This complaint was filed by the complainant Union against the Respondent employer in the year 1984. The Petitioners (Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the complaint) were subsequentlyimpleaded as Respondents in the year 1994 being necessary and proper party to the complaint. By an order dated 1.2.1994 on the application made by the complainant Union to implead the said Respondents, who are the Petitioners in the present Petition. Si...

The Dyes and Chemical Workers Union Vs. Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR654; 2001(2)BomCR631; (2001)3BOMLR663; 2001(2)MhLj1

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.The issue of functional Integrality of more than one undertakings owned by even one employer is no more res integra. The Supreme Court has very succinctly prescribed the test to be applied to decide this question. Even this High Court has in different matters considered the contention raised in a number of such matters on the point of undertakings being different or independent or Interdependent. The petitioner union has once again pressed this point in service in the present petition.2. We are only at the stage of admission. I may mention here that the first Inning of this litigation was contested by the parties on the point whether in computing the number of workmen employed during the preceding period of 12 months should include the persons employed by the labour contractor and the workers enrolled with Mathadi Board. According to the employers in this matter, while computing the number of workmen, to apply the provisions of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes ...