Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Texport (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 2.00 lakhs imposed under Section 112 of the Act.3. The penalty has been imposed on the finding of the commissioner that the applicant has wrongly claimed the benefit provided in the Duty Exemption Pass book(DEPB) Scheme. the contention that entry 43 of the Schedule to the Scheme laying down the rates was at the relevant time ambiguously worded, and before its amendment permitted and interpretation that it covered only the hosiery which was to be made from 100% polyester fabric has prima facie merits, as does the contention that the goods were covered by tow entries-entry 43 and entry 47. The further contention that clause (d) of section 113 of the Act would not be available for confiscation, since the goods were neither restricted nor prohibited is also prima facie acceptable and therefore no penalty is imposable.4. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the penalty imposed and stay its recovery....

M/S. Vighnahar Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufactured sugar. They collected from their buyers duty @ 34/- per quintal (BED) and Rs.37/- per quintal (AED) but paid to the government BED @ Rs.17/- and AED @ Rs.21/- per ton. This was in terms of an incentive scheme under which they were permitted to retain the difference between the duty charged at the resale rate and paid at the levy rate. Show cause notice was issued invoking the provisions of rule 11D and demanding duty under section 11A. On the Assistant Collector confirming the demand and the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confirmation, the present appeal is before us.2. Shri K.P. Joshi shows us the Tribunal judgment in the case of Wainganga SSK Ltd. vs. CCE and submits that the ratio of the judgment would cover the present case in spite of the notification bearing a different number. We find this claim to be true. In this judgment the Tribunal held that in view of the machinery provision now availing for enforcement of section 11D the appeal should...

Laxman Shriyan Vs. Air India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(90)FLR227]; (2001)IILLJ473Bom

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The second Respondent is the Union of India. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the General Manager, S & P. Department, Deputy General Manager (Personnel) and Assistant Manager (Administration S & P), Department of Respondent No. 1 respectively.2. The Petition challenges an order of the Respondents dated February 21, 1997 terminating the petitioner's services with immediate effect on the ground that he had submitted a bogus caste certificate with the intention of enjoying the benefits due to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates.3. The main submission of Shri Dighe is that for the same alleged offence the petitioner had already been punished and admittedly after the punishment was fully; implemented the petitioner continued in service. In fact, the first Respondent has on several occasions thereafter expressed its appreciation and commended in writing the Petitioner's diligence. The submission is well founded.4. It is necessary therefore to set out the facts prio...

Jitendra Manohar Dixit and anr. Vs. Gopal Babulal Upadyay and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2068; (2002)104BOMLR313

R.K. Batta, J.1. Rule. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, heard forthwith.2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek quashing of and setting aside First Information Report and consequently, proceedings in Criminal Case No. 589 of 1999 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The case of the petitioners is that their marriage was solemnized on 24.12.1998 and due to the misunderstanding between the petitioners and family members of the petitioners, several cases were filed. According to the petitioners, since the matter is compromised and as the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to secure the ends of justice. In Criminal Case No. 589 of 1999 complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 who is brother of petitioner No. 2 for offence under Sections 323, 395, ...

Rajhans Metal Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The facts being common in all the cases, this batch of 7 appeals was taken up for disposal vide this common order.2. The appellants were not present in spite of notices. On several occasions in the past also they were absent. These appeals are, there fore, being disposed of on merits.3. In all cases scrap was imported. On examination, the scrap was found to contain empty cartridges. The percentage of such goods varied between 5% to 6.5% averaging at 1.85% Such cartridges were held to be falling under the Negative List which contains an item "Empty/discharged cartridges of all boxes/size." The Adjudicating Authority in each case confiscated the goods under provisions of See.III(d) as well as of Sec III(m) of the Customs Act,1962 but allowed their redemption on payment of fines and penalties equal to the value.All importers filed appeals which were disposed of by the common order now impugned before me. Before the Commissioner(Appeals) submissions were advanced to the effect that the...

Jaipan Domestic Appliances Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These bunch of applications have been filed for waiver of duty of Rs. 22,47,136 demanded against the assessee, J.S. Industries, appellant in Appeal E/2332/00 and imposition of penalty of various sums on all the appellants.2. In this case the facts appear to be that J.S. Industries at Mumbai produced a product what is known as "Rot maker " and send the same to Jaipan Domestic Appliances Ltd. (Jaipan for short), Silvassa bearing a mark Asian Sky Shop. The recipient at Silvassa, who is also an appellant before us in Appeal E/2120/00 sent the same to its shop at Asian Sky Shop at Pondicherry. The case of the department is that the product has a mark on it therefore the assessee was not entitled to notification 1/93. At the time of investigation, that is sometime in September 1997, the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs towards duly. It is the contention of the assessee that the term "Asian Sky Shop" is not a trade mark and affixture of such a mark will not hit the provisions of no...

Sotex Sonic Unity Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC112

1. A common show cause notice was issued to Sotex, Sonic, Unity Industries and Stelex demanding duty from them amounting to Rs. 8,23,830/- Rs. 66,74,620/- Rs. 38,78,441/- and Rs. 33,22,749/- respectively, and proposing penalty under 209A on V.V. Rajani, the partner of Unity Industries. Each of them manufactured watch straps.The notice took note of the fact that the three entities in question, Sotex, Sonic and Unity Industries (Stelex being a division of Sotex) were either partnership firms or proprietary concerns and the partners and proprietors were closely related to each other. It alleged that the units were "working in collusion with each other and engaged in clandestine receipt and removal of excisable goods without payment of duty and to suppress correct identity of each of the unit and to suppress the correct production and clearance." It alleged that all the units belonged to Mahendrabhai Majithia and that they were only shown on paper to be separate units. Elsewhere, the noti...

PravIn Metal Works, Ashok Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we have decided to dispose of the appeals after waiving deposit.2. Pravin Metal Works (Appellant in appeal 2010) is the manufacturer at Jalgaon of tractors.Its partners are Ashok P.Chaudhary, Dinesh P.Chaudhary and Pravin P.Chaudhary During the period that we are concerned with,three other entities had been registered with the department at Jalgaon for manufacture of such trailers. They were Pankaj Auto, Yogesh Auto and Sarang Auto.3. The department issued notice on 23.4.99 to Pravin Metal Works and other appellants before us who are the partners of these three firms and Pravin Metal.The notice showed the close relationship between various partners and allege that Sarang auto, Pankaj Auto and Yogesh Auto were fictitious entities which were created by these partners in order to show manufacture at these premises of tractor trailers which were actually manufactured at Pravin Metal Works.The notice accordingly proposed to disallow the benefit of exemption und...

Swati Enterprises Vs. C.C. Ex, Rajkot

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This batch of applications deals with the common issue although the applicants are different. These are, therefore, disposed of vide this common order.2. On hearing both the sides, the appeals were admitted for hearing and the stay applications were taken up. The assessees manufactured diesel oil engines as also centrifugal pump sets. the latter is a combination of pumps and diesel oil engine mounted on the same foundation. Earlier the classification of such combination was referred to the CBEC. The issue there was of classification of power driven pump sets and electric motor. The Board ruled that the combination should be classified as pump and the electric motor should be considered as part of pump. At a later date vide circular No. 224/58/96-CX the same ruling was applied to the combination of pump and engine. In terms of this clarification, the engine in such cases become parts of pumps. The appellants in the present cases manufactured engine and purchased the pumps from outsi...

Jayendra D. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jch,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported two consignments of boric acid valued at Rs. 22.81 lakhs and cleared them in October, 1992 and January, 1994 without payment of duty in terms of notification 203/92. The notification exempts from duty goods imported for utilisation in the manufacture of gods to be exported, or imported in replenishment of goods so utilised.The appellants was required to complete the export obligation within one year from the importation. It is not in dispute that the appellants did not fulfil the export obligation that lay upon him, and sold the imported goods around the end of 1996. The departmental's officers who visited in April, 1998 the premises of the "supporting manufacturer," one designated for manufacture of the export product were bags containing what the manufacturer said was the imported boric acid. They found the bags to contain common salt. Following issue of notice, to the importer, the Commissioner passed the order impugned in the appeal in which he confirmed ...