Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Sharpmax Engineers, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC102

1. The above two appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 62/COMMR./1995 dt. 21.12.95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Rajkot whereby he confirmed a duty of Rs. 81,31,835/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the assessee.He also confiscated land, building, plant etc. and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The order also imposed penalty on a partner of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944, who has filed Appeal No. E/901-R/96-Mum.2.1 The assessee (appellant in Appeal E 690-R/90) is a registered Partnership firm and was a SSI unit. It was engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 82 of the Central Excise Tariff including spoons, forks, ladles, skimmers, cake-servers, fish-knives, butter-knives and knives with cutting blades, kitchen knives etc. In doing its business it filed several classification list. The classification list No. 154/87-88 was filed with effect from 1st March 1998 (page 47 of t...

Degmak Enginering Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT641Tri(Mum.)bai

1. 1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 5,92,378/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Degmak Engineering Corporation and Rs. 60,000/- on Hareshlal T. Bhatia, its authorised signatory.2. The order in question has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, on a show-cause notice issued by the Marine and Prevention wing of the organisation, alleging undervaluation of the valves and fittings imported by Degmak Engineering Corporation. The goods were imported and cleared after assessment at the Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai on bill of entry which the importer had filed on 10.2.1994. Subsequent to this clearance, the goods were sold to the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. The show cause notice alleging undervaluation has been issued under Section 28.3. Counsel for the applicants relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in 1992 (52) ELT 161 and the Supreme Court's judgement in Union of India Vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath 1997 (96) ELT 224 to say that jurisdictio...

Har Bhagwan Wadhwa and Rajender Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal passed orders on stay applications filed by each of the applicants and Om Freight Forwarders on 30.1.1997 after hearing their common advocate. It ordered deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh by Har Bhagwan Wadhwa and Rajender Nanda respectively against the penalty imposed on them of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs respectively. There was no deposit by either of these applicants. Notice was therefore issued to each of them proposing dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the terms of the stay order. Each of them replied in identical terms stating that their advocate "have not followed up my case" and transferred the file to another advocate without their consent and seeking adjournment. The Tribunal finally passed orders on 27.9.2000 dismissing the appeals for non-compliance. It noted that four years had passed after the stay order and there had not been any deposit. These applicants have now filed applications for restoration of their appeals.2. The contention o...

The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of duty of Rs. 19,59,482/- plus interest under section 11AB and penalty of equal amount under section 11AC read with rule 9(ii) and/or rule 173Q and/or rule 26. The application also seeks to stay the recovery of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of goods under rule 173Q.2. The assessee is a well-known textile industry manufacturing varieties of textile goods. It is manufacturing these goods for more than 125 years. The assessee entered into a contract with M/s. Shivram Associates, Coimbatore, in and by which the assessee sold goods worth Rs. 7.5 crores some time in the year 1997. The goods were manufactured bearing the brand names "Shiv Bulls Eye", "Shiv Third Eye" etc. The idea behind branding the goods in such varieties was the goods would be sold by the distributors at Coimbatore which would indicate the relationship between the seller and the goods. Due to non-payment of the price by the purchaser at Coimbatore there was a litigati...

Gajraj Corporation and 16 ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC846

1. These bunch of 17 appeals, although filed by different assessees, covers the same point and is therefore taken up together for disposal in this common order.2. We have heard Shri M.N. Sayed for the appellants and Shri B.K.Choubey for the Revenue.3. The appellants Draw Texturised Partially Oriented Yarn. The inputs and outputs were covered under the proforma credit scheme under Rule 56A with effect from 1.3.87, vide Notification No. 84/87. Notification No. 1/93 which superseded Notification No. 175/86, prescribed concessional rate of duty based on value of clearances by SSI units.Vide amendment dt. 25.4.94 the input and output were specified for benefit under this notification. This notification gave two options.The first was that the assessees could pay concessional rate of duty and avail of modvat credit. The second option was not to pay any duty and not to avail of modvat credit. The assessees in these case opted for the first option as soon as goods were notified under Notificat...

M/S. Ivp Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides it appeared that the issue being limited, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting proforma waiver of duty of Rs. 44,800/- confirmed against the appellants.2. The appellants produced and cleared "liquid phenolic resin ISRO resin" to Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre without payment of duty in terms of notification 64/95 dated 16.3.1995 (para 7). The notification covered "systems and sub-systems of launch vehicles and systems and sub-systems of satellite project". The conditions were that this must be for use in a satellite project of the ISRO, that there must be a certificate of requirement to be given by the designated authority of ISRO, and that the end-use certificate had to be produced.3. Show cause notice dated 13.12.1996 was issued alleging that the goods namely resins could not be termed as systems or sub-systems of launch vehicles. The second objection was that the eligibility certificate was issued by the ISRO for the Coi...

Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatia Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1402; (2001)3BOMLR146; 2001CriLJ3880

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who styles herself as mother of the detenu - Sanjeev Bhatia, has impugned the order dated 14.2.2001 passed by the second respondent Mrs. Joyce Shankaran, Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharahtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (52 of 1974). (Hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act. 1974.)2. The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 14.2.2001 was served on the detenu on 24.2.2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since it is common ground between them that when the second respondent passed the Impugned order against the detenu, the d...

Shahid Abdulla Siddiqui Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through the Narcotic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1549; (2001)3BOMLR479

Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. Both these criminal appeals are filed by the appellants, Shahid Abdulla Siddiqui and Abujafar Abubakar Bakshi, original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.2.1996, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 371/91.2. By the impugned judgment and order, accused No. 1 Shahid Abdulla Siddiqui was convicted of the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (for short, 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months.3. Accused No. 3 Abujafar Abubakar Bakshi was convinced of the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and wassentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months.This conviction and sentence was awarded by the S...

Gulab Gaibu Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1404

Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This application is filed by the applicant/convict Gulab Gaibu Shaikh, who is at present lodged at Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. He was convicted on 30.11.1999, by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Indapur, in two separate cases being Regular Criminal Case Nos. 97 and 110 of 1994. In both these cases, which were tried vide separate C.R. numbers, the applicant/accused was convicted in each of these two cases for offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years in each case.2. By the present application, the applicant has prayed that this Court pass an order directing the applicant to suffer his both the imprisonment of three year's R.I., concurrently, and not in succession.3. Now, few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the point and decide whether the prayer made by the applicant can be considered or not.4. As far as Regular Criminal Case No. 97 of 1994 is concerned, it was registered...

G. Thiagarajan Alias Rajan Gopal Vs. J.B. Engineering Works and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR444; (2001)4BOMLR40; [2002(92)FLR184]

R.J. Kochar. J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 21st November, 1998 passed by the First Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference I. D. A. No. 584 of 1991 given by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 for adjudication of an industrial dispute between the employer-respondent and the petitioner in the above writ petition.2. The petitioner was in employment of the respondent employer and his services were terminated on and from 24th July, 1990. According to the petitioner, this order of termination was illegal, invalid, improper, unjustified, unwarranted and mala fide. He further contended that the charges levelled against him were vague and that he was not given a properopportunity to defend himself. According to the petitioner, he was innocent and had not committed any act of misconduct, which would make the respondent lose confidence in him. The petitioner has prayed for reins...