Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Century Dyg. and Ptg. Mill ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant appeal is against the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat, who by the impugned order as held as follows: "In both these cases the JAC rejected the modvat credit refund which remains in balance in the deemed credit register. As he found that the documents were not produced and also that the goods were exported and during that period the refund claim could have been utilised for payment of duty for clearances of goods during the same period which was paid through PLA. On this issue, on appellant's own case vide OIA No. SSS/SRT/2103-2106/99 dt. 29.10.99 the order was set aside and for the same reasons these cases are remanded back to the JAC to reconsider the claim where the appellants should be given a chance to produce the documents. OIOs are therefore set aside.The instant appeal has been filed against the said order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Central Excise and Customs, Surat. In the instant order the Commissioner (Appeals) are rema...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Aurangabad Electricals Pvt

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from the revenue seeks to negate the reliance placed by the Commissioner in the impugned order on the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Die Ichi Karkaria Ltd vs CCE (1996 (81) ELT 676). The ratio of this decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court in its judgement as reported in 2000 (112) ELT 353.2. The sole ground of appeal made by the revenue therefore does not survive....

Commissioner of Customs Acc, Vs. M/S Black and Decker Bajaj Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is about Electric Hammer Drill is a consumer item or not.2. The respondents assessee had imported hammer drill and they contended that it is not a consumer goods within the meaning of the term "consumer goods" as provided under paragraph 156 of the EXIM Policy 1992-97. They contended that the drill has the capacity to drill 13 (M.M.) holes on steel and concrete and it has a hammer action. They further contended before the authorities below: (1) This drill has the Capacity to drill 13 (M.M.) holes on steel and concrete. (2) This drill has a hammer action for high power drilling with a matching motor. (3) This drill is used by professionals doing the above kind of work (i.e. Steel and Concrete). (4) The person who uses this drill need to be trained specifically to handle the same. (5) This drill will be made available to the professionals from the specific distribution points (like Iron and Steel Market, Building Material Market etc.) (6) This is ...

Javeri Polymers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of the total duty demanded of Rs. 1,06,901/- and penalty imposed of Rs. 1,29,836/- a sum of Rs. 52,690/- has already been deposited.3. Duty has been demanded on two grounds, that a consignment of polyethylene manufactured by the applicant was cleared without payment of duty, and that there is an unaccounted shortage of goods manufactured from the applicant's factory.4. I am unable, prima facie, to accept the contention of the representative of the applicant that there has been a demand for duty twice on one consignment which was cleared without payment of duty. If this were the case, the quantity seized would tally exactly with the quantity found short in the RG1 register. That is not so. The quantity found short in the RG1 register is 53542 bags whereas the quantity which was seized was 50000 bags. Counsel for the applicant offer to deposit 50% of the remaining duty. However, I am unable to accept this offer. Even if the counsel's contention is accepted, there is still a short...

Dwarkadas Velji Talpatriwala Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT769Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty of Rs. 1,71,407/- and penalty of Rs. 30,000/- are required to be deposited. The application has been filed in an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him to failure to deposit the entire duty demanded int he order of the Asst.Commissioner.2. Duty has been demanded on the ground that certificate issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent in respect of part of a consignment, referred to as a subsidiary gate pass, could not be endorsed and such an endorsed document is not a valid document for taking credit.3. Counsel for the applicant relies upon a circular F.No.253/26/68-CX-o dated 23.2.1989 of the Board. This circular provides that, in suppression of an earlier instruction, subsidiary gate passes may be permitted to be endorsed only once for availing credit for the entire quantity covered by the document. It is not in dispute that there was online endorsement was and the document covered the entire quantity.The decision of the Trib...

ispl Industries Limited 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. 3,68,487/- and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the relevant papers and heard the departmental representative.2. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Dy.Commissioner, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that applicant cleared scrap manufactured by it without payment of duty thereon. The first contention in the stay application, that the Dy. Commissioner is not competent to adjudicate the show cause notice, is not supported by any material. While there is some reference to a circular of the Board stating that such cases should be adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, the circular has not been produced; nor is there any thing to show, assuming that it says what it is purported to say, why the Dy. Commissioner, who is of the same rank of Additional Commissioner could not adjudica...

A.K. Thaker Vs. Miss Marylivina Chinyere Okereke and ors

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1776

B.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay, against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai in NDPS Special Case No. 278 of 1992. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein were put up for trial before the Special Judge, charged variously on offences punishable under Sections 21, 23, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962. By his impugned Judgment and order, the Special Judge acquitted both the Respondents of all the charges levelled against them.2. Mr. Tiwari, Advocate, appeared before us on behalf of Respondent No. 1, Miss Marylivina Chinyere Okereke. Respondent No. 2, Mr. Joseph Ikeh @ Jonathan, however, could not be served with notice of this Appeal as he was traceless. Hence, the Appeal as against him stood dismissed in terms of the order of this Court, ...

Sangappa V. Tenginakai Vs. State (Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj479

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30th August, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1997. 2. Briefly stated, the abovesaid Sessions Case was instituted on the basis of a complaint by the Applicant herein, under Sections 204 and 210 of Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the commission of offence by the respondent No. 2 and two others (who expired during the trial) punishable under Sections 307, 364, 392, 506 and 342 of Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was originally filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Mapusa on 9th April, 1990. 3. It would be relevant to point out at this stage that the incident in question occurred on 30th September, 1983 at about 9.30 a.m. The F.I.R. was duly registered in respect of the said incident; and the Police, after investigation, filed 'A' Summary Report, which came to be accepted by the Magistrate. 4. It is...

Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Narayan Rawal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR302; 2001(4)BomCR402; (2001)3BOMLR817; [2001(90)FLR150]; (2001)IILLJ502Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The following two latest judgments of the Supreme Court have given rise to the present litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court.(i) Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Ann.(ii) Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union.On the basis of these two Judgments, the petitioners filed an application before the Industrial Court where the complaints on behalf of the employees/union were filed against the petitioners under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the M.R.T.U. &P.U.L.P.; Act). These complaints are still pending before the Industrial Court. On 20th February, 2001 the Petitioners filed separate identical applications before the Industrial Court in the aforesaid complaints praying that in view of the aforesaid Judgments of the Supreme Court, these complaints should be dismissed as the petitioners have disputed the employer-employee relationship wit...

Bharat Shantilal Shah Vs. Percival Noronha and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR830; 2002(1)MhLj250

1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 8th November, 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji in Civil Appeal No. 1/2000.2. Briefly stated, the said Appeal has been filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the change of zone of the petitioner's property to commercial zone in the Outline Development Plan. The petitioner took objection to the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to institute an appeal within the meaning of Section 38 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said preliminary objection has been rejected by the impugned order; and instead it has been held that appeal filed by respondent No. 1 is maintainable.3. The petitioner, has, therefore, taken exception to the view taken by the District Court, by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Respondent No. 1 appeared in ...