Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Gajanan V. Vibhute Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR678; 2001(4)BomCR766; [2002(92)FLR535]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An order of dismissal has been sustained by the Labour Court in a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has held that the misconduct stood proved. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of evidence which was adduced before the Labour Court on behalf of the employer, the first respondent to these proceedings. The Labour Court had initially come to the conclusion that the enquiry which had been held by the employer into the charge of misconduct was not fair and proper. Consequently in view of the well settled position in law an opportunity was given to the employer to sustain the charge of misconduct by leading evidence before the Labour Court. On the basis of the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the charge was established and that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. 2. The petitioner before the Court was employed as a store-keeper with the first...

M/S. Sai Galvanizers and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is whether a notice can be issued after expiry of six months for reversing the modvat credit which was wrongly availed and issued under Rule 571 of the modvat Rules.The issue has been settled by judgment of the Single Member of the Tribunal (Justice U.L. Bhat, President) in the case of Collector of Central Excise Merrut Vs.Majestic Auto Ltd.[1997 (93) ELT 534 (Tribunal)] this has been echoed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE, Jaipur Vs.Raghuvar(India)Ltd.[2000(90)ECR 414(SC)]. I therefore set aside the impugned order and hold that the show cause notice is beyond the time fixed under the statute, appeal has to be allowed setting aside the impugned orders....

M/S Rainbow Inks and Varnish Mfg. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal itself was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The issue involved in this case is by Order dt. 15.12.89. The classification of the product was classified under Item 15A was Scheduled of the Central Excise Tariff. In consequence thereof the appellants were entitled to refund of Rs.2,60,129.93. The refund was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner in its Order dt. 15.7.93. The question involved in this matter is above applicability of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, namely passing of incidence of duty to be consumed and the applicability of the provisions relating to transfer of the duty to Consumer Welfare Fund. Shri R. Parthasarthy learned Advocate for the assessees argues that since the refund has been sanctioned how could there by any applicability of the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act. He argued that there cannot be any error I do not agree with the contention. The fact remains that after the judgment of he Supreme Cou...

Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For the reasons recorded below, we dispense with requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty confirmed by the impugned order and proceed to take up the appeal itself for disposal with consent of both sides.2. Duty of Rs. 14,10,622/- has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to avail of duty free clearance under notification 203/92 since they had availed of input stage credit which is contrary to the condition of the above notification.3. Ld. Counsel Mr. Prakash Shah submits that there is no basis in the notice for such allegation and the finding is also based on total lack of evidence. He states that the reply to the show cause notice was filed in which it was only stated that they had not availed of modvat credit and due to the long lapse of time, the appellants are not a position to bring on record the documents of the supporting manufacturer (except one who had reversed the credit taken and availed of the Amnesty scheme) to show that they had not ...

itc Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for retention here of the appeals of Crown Tobacco Co. and Master Tobacco Co, against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi on the ground that their registered office are located in Mumbai are allowed.2. The three applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of following amounts. Rs. 5.96 crores by ITC, Parel; Rs. 83.06 lakhs by Master Tobacco Co. and Rs. 41.36 lakhs by Crown Tobacco Co.4. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi who was designated under the law to adjudicate the issue arising out of common notice issued by the Collector, Mumbai to the three applicants before us. The notice sought to determine the assessable value of the cigarettes cleared by each of the applicants by disallowing various elements as deductions.5. The assessments here are provisional. It was the contention taken by the manufacturer that, while the assessable value is provisional the notice under Section 11A of the Act cannot be issu...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S India Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In these two appeals that is Appeals No. E/1293/99-Mum and E/520/95-Mum the authority given by the Collector does not contain the crucial words "not legal and proper". Appeal is therefore cannot be heard in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills [1998 (101) ELT 5 (S.C.)]. Hence both appeals are dismissed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Diapers (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Notice under Section 11A of the Act was issued to the manufacturer, the respondent to the appeal, demanding duty for a period beyond six months from the relevant date. The notice alleged that the assessee had suppressed from the department an agreement which showed the existence of a relationship between the manufacturer and its buyer, which was material in determining the assessable value of the goods under assessment manufactured by the appellant. Adjudicating upon this notice, the Commissioner found that the copy of the agreement had been submitted by the manufacturer with its letter of 26.6.91 and that any failure by the department while in possession of the agreement to establish the relationship between the manufacturer and the buyer would not be as a result of suppression by the manufacturer. He therefore dropped the demand. The appeal is by the department to set aside that order.2. The ground in the appeal is that while the Commissioner may be right in his conclusion as bey...

Archana Electrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for correction of what is stated to be an error in the Tribunal's final order. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. The submission of the applicant is that the bench has not considered the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in India Casting Co. vs. CEGAT 1998 (104) ELT 17 and two decisions of the Tribunal, which permitted compliance with the deposit to be made be debit to the modvat account.This point had already been considered in the earlier order and we have held that there was no ratio in the judgment of any Court or a decision of the Tribunal that debit to the RG23A account has in every case to be accepted as ratio. No fresh point is urged before us....

Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we order that in paragraph 10 of our order, the figures "89.05" to be replaced by the figures "49.01"....

Collector of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Bombay Sewree Chemicals Mfg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

When I look into the matter it is found that the authorisation does not contain the crucial word "Not legal and Proper". Hence the appeal filed by the Collector is wrong this had been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vs. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills [1998 (101) ELT 5 (S.C.)]. Appeal stands dismissed....