Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Premier Plastic Industry Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector holding that the appellant manufactured from 1 March 1986 to 1 December 1986 the goods which it cleared without payment of duty, demanding such duty and imposing penalty on the appellant.3. In their statements recorded during the investigation Nalinbhai K Patel partner of the firm, and Pravinbhai P Patel, the Supervisor had agreed that they had manufactured and cleared in March 1996 goods of which they have not paid duty. There is no ground in the appeal, which questions this admission which the Additional Collector has relied upon. The appellant contends that the demand for the period December 1986 is incorrect. The department's case for this period is based upon the fact that there were quantities of raw material which were shown in the private books which were shown to have been received by the manufacturer, seen from the private records which were not entered in the form IV register, which is a statutory record for raw...

National Plastic Industries Ltd, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The penalties have been imposed for the reason that the applicant kept a large quantity of its goods, involving duty of Rs 80.00 lakhs in place other than the premises approved under Rule 47.2. The counsel for the applicant says that the goods represented two months production and there was no intention to evade duty.3. Taking note of this, and the contention of the departmental representative that the rule itself provides that store room can be dispenses with only where the manufacturer undertakes to clear the goods immediately on completion of production, I waive deposit of the penalty imposed on the manufacturer and direct deposit Rs 20,000/- by Paresh Parekh and Rs 10,000/- by Ranjodh Jaiswal within two months from to day. On such a deposit, I waive deposit of the remaining penalties nd stay their recovery....

Mukund 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 1,00,537.53 and a penalty of Rs 10,000/-.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed for the reason that the applicant, located in Kurla, took credit of the duty paid on a bill of entry filed for clearing goods imported by its unit in Kalwe. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the company' purchase office was located the group's office was located at Kurla is not found in the application or appeal. The decisions of the Tribunal that he cites relate to cases where bill of entry show the registered office of the manufacture and the goods were utilised in a factory at different location. Whether these decisions would apply to the facts of the case has to be determined.3. In these circumstances, I waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery, subject to the condition that the applicant undertakes to keep unutilised in its RG23C account the duty that has been demanded during the pendency of t...

Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit under Rule 57Q as capital goods of electric transformers, forklift, pallet, stalker, weighing machine and air conditioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Assistant Collector that the goods are not directly used for producing or processing the commodity or bringing about any change in the substance of the final product therefore are not capital goods.Jawahar Mills Ltd. vs CCE 1999 (108) ELT 47, the Tribunal has confirmed the view taken earlier by many benches that to be considered capital goods under Rule 57Q, a machine or machinery need not itself be directly employed for producing or processing any goods on bringing about any change in substance.Relying upon the view expressed by the Courts and the Tribunal that production and processing of goods in a plant would include operations not directly connected with the production processes such as handling of raw material, affluen...

Smt. Zebunnisa Abdul Majid Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR41; 2001CriLJ2759; 2001(3)MhLj365

Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.1. This petition is filed by the mother of one Abdul Rafiq alias Rafiq Lala Majid Shaikh ('the detenu') who has been detained under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ('he said Act' for short), challenging the order of detention issued by Shri M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai dated 6th July, 2000 whereunder the detenu is detained.2. The order of detention issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was served on the detenu along with grounds of detention and material in support thereof on 15th July, 2000. Pursuant thereto the detenu was detained in Nasik Road Central Prison at Nasik.3. In the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has set out incidents in which the detenu is involved and which in his opinion, h...

Union of India Through General Manager, Western Railway Vs. Shri P.S. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR58; (2001)3BOMLR672

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioners, the Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway, have challenged the impugned orders of the Central Government Labour Court No.2 passed on 5.2.1996, as Judgment Part-I, and on 3.6.1996, as Judgment Part-II, in Application No. LC-2/2 to 5 of 1992 filed on 17.1.1992 by the Respondent No.1 the railway servant, who claimed overtime wages for the period from September, 1975 to August, 1979. The total claim was Rs.46,997.15, as far as this railway servant is concerned. Along with the aforesaid Respondent No. 1 there were three other railway servants, who are before me as Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who had also filed similar applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947to claim overtime wages from December, 1975 to November, 1983, from January, 1968 to December, 1982 and from October, 1967 to January, 198O respectively.2. There is no dispute that as far as the Respondent Nos. 2. 3 and 4 are concerned, they had ...

Dilipsing Bhagwat Patil Vs. Principal, Kisan Mahavidyalaya and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR809; 2001(4)BomCR449

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard Mr. S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.J. Godbole, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to delete the respondent No. 3.3. Leave granted.4. Heard. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing.5. An advertisement for the post of Instructor came to be issued in the year 1994 (Exhibit 'G' to the petition). It was not specifically made clear that the post of instructor was a reserved or unreserved one, however, against the post of Peon, which was also advertised in the said advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the said post was reserved for scheduled tribe category and therefore, we can safely infer that the advertised post of instructor was not a reserved post and it was to be filled in from open category candidates....

Godrej Soaps Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT322Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 56,797/-.Duty has been demanded by limiting the modvat credit taken on fuel oil and other such hydrocarbon oils used by the applicant to the quantity actually received, determined by deducting the weight of the tanker truck from its gross laden weight. This quantity is less than the quantity on which duty was paid.2. While I find substance in the claim of the counsel for the applicant that there could be difference in the weight because of differences in the accuracy of the weighbridges at the factory of the manufacturer of these goods and at the factory where it received, I am unable to agree, prima facie, that a difference of up to 2% should be condoned. The decision of the Tribunal in Neera Enterprises Vs. CCE198 (104) ELT 382, which he relies does not laid down any such general proposition and has to be confined to the facts of that case.3. I therefore order a deposit by reversal of modvat credit account of Rs. 28,000/-. O...

M/S. Geeta Exports and M/S. Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications filed by M/s. Geeta Exports and Shri Ashok Khetan partner thereof involved identical issues. They are therefore being disposed of together vide this single order. Both have filed applications for condonation of delay.2. In terms of our directions made in Order No. C-II 3607-08/WZB/2000 dt. 7.12.2000, the case file from the Commissioner (Appeals) office was produced by the DR. It appears that the Order dt. 30.1.97 was sent to the office of the Advocate appearing for the appellants and not to the appellants. In the proforma of the appeal filed before the Commissioner, the Counsel's address is shown at which the "Notice" was to be sent. In all propriety the copy of the order was required to be served on the assessee. In the application for condonation of delay this point has been stressed and it has to be accepted.3. We condone the delay in filing of the appeal. We have also examined the applications for stay, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed th...

Suresh Ranglal Bohra Vs. Commissioner of and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT693Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal has came to be passed following the seizure of U.K. (SIC)oe 17,100/- and U.S. $ 31,950/-, equivalent to Rs. 17,42,082/- from the possession of the appellant while he was carrying it on his scooter. When asked to explain the possession of he appellant while he was carrying it on his scooter. When asked to explain the possession of the currency, the appellant said that, in addition to selling dry fruits at his shop at Bazargate Street, he also he used to traffic in smuggled gold. He used to buy the gold from foreign nationals who contacted him, and sell it to Hanif, who was at Surat, but telephoned him every Wednesday and Sunday. Two Polish nationals approached him and offered foreign marked gold for sale in exchange for foreign currency. On the next occasion that Hanif telephoned, the appellant told him about the gold being available. Hanif came to Bombay, gave the appellant the currency and picked up the gold. The appellant was ...