Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Tata Telecom Ltd., M/S. Trans Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These four applications relate to four appeals filed against the single order of the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Ahmedabad.These are therefore being disposed of together vide this common order.2. Inspite of notice no applicant was present.The applications are therefore taken up for disposal, after hearing Shri AK Jain JDR.3. M/s.Tata Telecome Ltd. and M/s. Trans India Network Systems Ltd.are situated adjacent to each other. Certain inputs received by M/s. Tata Telecome Ltd.on which credit was taken were found to be stored in the premises of M/s. Trans India Ltd. The officers took this to be removal of inputs as such by M/s. Tata Telecome Ltd.without payment of duty and without following the appropriate legal formalities.Statement of Shri DC Joshi Sr.Manager of M/s. Tata Telecom Ltd.was recorded.He was the authorised person of both units.In his statement he claim that the storage was made on the ground of lack of space in M/s.Tata Telecome Ltd. After issue of show cause noti...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Ahmedabad Packaging

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue had come up for hearing on a number of occasions. On 12.2.2001 respondent's employee namely Shri Bipin Shah was present in the Court and had signed the memorandum in compliance of the notice of hearing. Today when the case was called out assessees were not present. We therefore proceed to decide the issue after hearing Smt. Reena Arya for the Revenue.2. The assessees manufactured HDPE Tapes Fabrics and Sacks. For some time the classification of the products was in doubt and the assessees had been paying duty at the higher rate. The payment was made under protest. On settlement of the basis issue the refund claim was field.The Assistant Commissioner passed orders allowing a small portion of the claim, rejecting a small portion of the claim and directing diversion of the sum of Rs.70,95,020/- to their Consumer Welfare Fund on the observation that the burden of duty was passed on by the assessees to their consumers. The assessees filed an appeal, the C...

M/S. Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT88Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants are a trader buying goods from M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The Charge made in the show cause notice was that M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. the manufacturers were related to the present applicants and the value at which the goods were sold by the present applicants should have been the basis of assessment. The show cause notice cited the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for invoking penalty on both notices. Penalties were accordingly imposed on both and duty was confirmed against M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The appeal filed by M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt.Ltd. was dismissed by the Tribunal for failure to comply with the directions made o n redeposit. Hence the case of the present applicants was separated and heard today. We have heard Shri A V Phadnis. The short submissions made by him i s that the applicant being a trader did not fall under the ambit of rule 173Q which coverd only a manufacturer or a producer or a warehouse...

M/S. G.E. Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufactured Polycarbonate Bottles. They claimed benefit of Notification No. 5/98-CE dt. 2.6.98. Show cause notice was issued seeking to deny the credit, on the ground that condition No.10 in that notification was not satisfied. It was claimed that modvat credit facility was availed of in the manufacture of other products.The Assistant Commissioner interpreted the condition in favour of the assessee, The department then filed a review application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner interpreted the condition against the assessee. Hence the present appeal.2. Shri CS Lodha Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants placed before us Tribunal judgement in the case of N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. Vs.CCE, Delhi [2000 (41) RLT 389 (CEGAT)], which covers the issues involved in the present case. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the said judgement are reproduced below:- "4. We have considered the submissions of both sides. Srl. No.69 of the table below notification No. 5/98 provides...

M/S. Orion Chem P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for restoration of the appeal filed on 14.6.2000 is sought to be withdrawn vide submission dt. 2.4.2001. Accordingly dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. National Appliances, Lalit Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC831

1. This is an application for extension of time prescribed for making predepositby M/s. National Appliances vide our Order No.C-II/3153-56/WZB/2000 dt. 30.10.2000. On hearing both sides we grant the prayer and direct that the predeposit be made by 3rd May, 2001. The case is posted for reporting compliance on 8th May, 2001. Advocate takes Notice....

Jyoti Plastics Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,12,339/- imposed under Rule 571 and Section 11AC of the Act. The duty of the same amount has been deposited.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed for two reasons. The first is that the applicant wrongly availed benefit of exemption under entry 69 of the table to the notification 5/98 in that it did not comply with the condition that no modvat credit should be taken on any goods manufactured in its factory in which the exempted goods were manufactured. The second reason is that inputs on which modvat credit was taken was found short. The duty on the first and second counts accounts for Rs. 37,658/- and Rs. 74,174/- respectively.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant on the first count is somewhat ambiguous. He says that the applicant did not, "come to know" about the existence of this condition. How this state of affairs happened is not explained. There is no contention that the notification was receive...

Union of India Through the General Manager, Western Railway Vs. the Di ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR786; [2001(90)FLR172]; 2001(4)MhLj675

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The present Petition is filed by the Union of India through its General Manager of Western Railway to challenge the Award dated 11.10.1996 given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in Reference No. CGIT-1/5 of 1996.2. The Motor Lorry Drivers (M.L.D.) of the Western Railway demanded travelling allowance for duty performed by road from Lower Parel Workshop to Churchgate/Budhwar Park on the basis that the distance between the Lower Parel Workshop to Churchgate/Budhwar Park was more than 8 kms. and under the rules they were entitled to get such travelling allowance. The Railway Administration did not agree with their demands which finally came to be referred for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The following industrial dispute is adjudicated by the Tribunal in the present Award.'Whether the Truck Drivers working at Parel Workshop are entitled to get T.A. for duty performed by Road way from Lower Parel to Churc...

Sheshrao Bhagwanji Hirulkar and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1882; 2002BomCR(Cri)391; 2001CriLJ3193

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The point involved in both these matters is same and as such the matters are being disposed of by common judgment. The applicants claim benefit of Circular dated 7th May, 1976 issued by the Government of Maharashtra.2. In Criminal Application No.1598 of 1997, the applicant has been prosecuted for offence under Section 409, I.P.C. It is alleged that the applicant had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,461.19 during 19-1-1983 to 17-2-1983. On 17-2-1983, the misappropriation was noticed by the Revenue Inspector and the applicant deposited the misappropriated amount on 21-2-1983 and 22-2-1983. He filed an application before the Magistrate seeking directions to be issued to the State to withdraw the prosecution or in the alternative to hold that the prosecution stands withdrawn fictionally. This application was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati vide order dated 15-4-1993. The said order was challenged by the applicant bef...

Ghanshyam a Rohra Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing on the appellant a penalty of Rs.2.50 lakhs under Section 112 (a) of the Act.2. The facts which are not in dispute are these. The appellant travelled from Delhi to Bombay on 31.7.1995 by flight. IC184 of Indian Airlines. When the flight landed at Bombay, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched him and found that he was carrying a small screw driver, circuit tester and 'S' shape metallic part in the pocket of his trouser. The officers seized these. The panchanama relating to the seizure also mentions that the appellant was carrying assorted foreign currency equivalent to Rs 15.12 lakhs approx. The recovery of the foreign currency from the appellant is however questioned by him.3. The department's case is that when the appellant went to Singapore on 22.7.1995, he met Abdul karim. That man told him that he would give the appellant instructions subsequently so that he could remove foreign currency conceal...