Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Baliram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Education Officer (Secon ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR51; (2002)104BOMLR220a

S.D. Gundewar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.1999 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati, whereby respondent No. 2 has been held as senior to petitioner No. 2.2. A few facts insofar as they are relevant, may be stated as below:The petitioner No. 2 Gangadhar Sheshrao Dandale was born on 20.8.1945. He was appointed as assistant teacher in Shri Bahrain Maharaj Vidyalaya, Mardi, Tahsil Tiwsa, District Amravati, on 1.7.1972. At the time of his appointment as assistant teacher, the petitioner No. 2 was under graduate and while in service he improved his qualification and passed his B.S.C Examination on 13.7.1974 and B.Ed. on 26.5.1976.Respondent No. 2 - Shankar Manikrao Wankhede was born on 5.5.1946. He was also appointed as assistant teacher in the aforesaid school on 1.7.1972. At the time of his appointment as assistant teacher, the respondent No. 2 was untrained graduate. He also passed his B.Ed. Examination on 26.5.1976.3. ...

Bayer Diagnostics India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT140Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These Nine appeals are filed by the same appellants. The issue being common, these are being disposed of by this single order.2. The appellants manufactured Diagnostic Reagent Kits and Diagnostic Reagent Strips. The classification was under Tariff Heading 3822. The manufacture of such substances requires a licence to be taken under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellants were in possession of such a licence.3. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act required compliance with the conditions prescribed in Rule 74 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Two of the sub-rules related to drawal of samples. Sub-rules (c) and (1) read as follows : "(c) the licensee shall either in his own laboratory or in any other laboratory approved by the licensing authority [under Part XV (A) of these rules] test each batch or lot of the raw material used by him for the manufacture of his products and also each batch of the final product and shall maintain records of registers showing the particulars in r...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. M/S. Epc Irrigation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. The respondents imported certain goods which were warehoused on 22.8.97. They sought transfer of the bonded goods to CWC Nasik Ware House. This was permitted on filing of a bond for sum of Rs. 12 lakhs only being the duty leviable on the goods backed by a Bank Guarantee of Rs.3 lakhs.The condition of the bond was that the goods should be re-warehoused within 21 days of the removal from Mumbai. The second condition was that the re-warehousing certificate should be produced.But the bond has not specified any time limit for the production of the re-warehousing certificate. Due to certain administrative problems the concerned officer at Nasik gave the certificate of warehousing on 20.3.98. In the certificate the date of re-warehousing was shown as 11.10.97, the very date on which the goods were removed from Mumbai.However, during the intervening period ie on 14.3.98 the Customs enforced the guarantee and recover...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Amrit Dye Chem Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorisation given by the Commissioner to file the appeal was filed in the photostat form. Directions were made to file the original copy of the authorisation dated 19.4.99. When the case was called out today, I find that the Commissioner has signed a fresh authorisation on 27.2.01. This is not in terms of the directions made. If this authorisation is taken on record, then the format of the appeal in the form 'A' will have to be changed and the Revenue will have to file an application for condonation of delay. It appears that the ld.Commissioner had not understood the directions made. Time is given upto 24.4.01 to correct the error pointed out. Posted for compliance on 30.4.01 with a caution that the appeal may be dismissed in the case of non compliance....

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Antifriction Bearing Corpn ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in their judgement in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune (1996(81) ELT 676(Tri) had held that for computing the assessable value, the quantum of modvat credit availed of on the inputs should not be taken for accountal. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the inpugned order followed this judgement. The Revenue contested this stand and made the plea that an appeal against the said judgement was being contemplated.2. This judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgement in the case of CCE, Pune vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd [1999(12) ELT 353 (S.C)]. The contentions made in the appeal do not survive. The appeal is dismissed....

Transpek Industry Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1194Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sodium hydrosulphate and other chemicals. For the manufacture of sodium hydrosulphate it requires zinc dust. It sends ingots produced by it to job worker who convert it into zinc dust and send it to the appellant under rule 57F(4). The appellant subjected zinc dust to various manufacturing processes. In the course of manufacture of sodium hydrosulphate requiring the use of zinc dust and intermediate product emerges. This has apparently no specific name. It is described as a black wet lump, contained unreacted zinc. This substance, it is stated, is used up in the use in the manufacture of final product. Notices were issued to the appellant demanding duty from the appellant that it manufactured zinc dust. though the notices did not clearly say so that what was demanded was the duty on the zinc contained in the black substance. Replying to the not...

P.V. Rao and Paresh Daxini Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications E/2086/2000 is for waiver of penalty of s. 1 lakh imposed on P.V. Rao and E/2109/2000 is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Paresh Daxini.2. We have heard mr. Arun Mehta for P.V. Rao. Paresh Daxini is absent and requests decision on the written submission filed by him which we have read along with the stay application.3. P.V. Rao was at the relevant time the general manager of Vikaram Product Ltd. By the impugned order, duty has been demanded on goods imported by Vikaram Products Ltd., penalties imposed on it and on the applicant before us on the ground that the benefit of notification 128/94 was not available to the goods imported by the applicant for the reason that these goods had not been utilised in the manufacture of goods exported as provided in the notification and hand been sold in the market. The contention on behalf of Rao is that he was not aware of the sale by Vikaram Shah,m who was the managing director of the importing firm of the...

M/S. Billets India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal since the point of law involved is covered.2. Modvat credit was sought by the appellants on (I) Polishing Stones & (2) Plastic/Ceramic Chips under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the rejection of the credit made by the lower authority based.... on some case law. Shri Sethi submits that in terms of the Larger Bench judgement in the case of Union Carbide(19986(86) ELT 612, machinery parts and ancillaries would qualify for such benefits. He says that in the case of Pratap Rajasthan Slt.Steel Ltd. (2000(118)E.L.T.246(Tri) this judgement was followed where the inputs were coated abrasive and aloxide paper belt. He submits that even if the goods are held to be eligible for credit as capital goods, he declaration made under Rule 57G would suffice (1999(105)ELT 183 Bhartiya Ispat Udyog). The goods being identical to coated abrasive would benefit for the modvat credit (Tit...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Shri Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpad ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT676Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This order disposs of two appeals, one filed by Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. (Warana for short), and other by the Collector against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Pune.2. Warana manufactured at its factory at Amritnagar a product, Bournivta. Cadbury India Ltd.(Cadbury for short) is the owner of the trademark for this product, stated to be a malted milk food. Cadbury supplied to Warana the raw material for manufacture of the product as also recipe for its manufacture. The employees of Cadbury were posted at the factory to supervise the receipt and handing over of the raw materials and to test samples of finished product. Warana supplied the entire production of Bournvita to Cadbury, being paid an agreed charge per kilogram as processing charges. Warana paid duty on the product on the cost of manufacture incurred by it.3. By notice issued to Warana, the department proposed to treat the manufacture of the product to be Cadbury, and to apply as its assessable...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Sun Moulding Works, Urea

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Notices issued to each of the respondents before us demanded duty on the product manufactured by each of them on the ground that it was melamine formaldehyde resin classifiable under item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff as a result of which, value of clearance of each of these manufacturers of the goods classifiable under this item exceeding the limit provided in notification 80/83 rendering it not applicable. In the orders impugned before us by the Commissioner, the adjudicating Collector has found that the goods were not classifiable under 15A(2). He found that it had not reached the stage of polymerisation justifying classification as plastic.2. Although considerable arguments were advanced by both sides as to the classification, we are of the view the appeals can be disposed of on limitation. The main basis of the department's case for classifying the goods under item 15A(1) is the report dated 28.6.83 of the departments Chemical Examiner at Vadodara finding the goods to be...