Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The is an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs made in order-in-appeal CAO No. 1105 to 1107/2000/CAC/CC/MKB dated 29.09.2000 whereunder he has confirmed three show cause notices issued on 16.6.1994, 2.3.1993 and 28.7.1993. He imposed a penalty of Rs.1,65,17,207.07.2. The appellants have been issued with two advance licences and they availed the benefit of notification 203/92. Three shows cause notices have been issued. In one of the show cause notices dated 29.9.1998 it was stated that the appellants were issued with licence No. 52729/AM 95. In reply to the same the appellants wrote by the their letter dated 12.10.1998 which was received by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai on 14.10.1998 stating that they have never been issued with the said licence. They also followed it up by their letter dated 6.1.2000 which was received by the adjudicating authority on 10.1.2000 that they were never issued any licence. As far as the other two show cause notices are conce...

Modipon Ltd., A.G. Powar, N.S.V. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant, M/s. Modipon Ltd., is a manufacturer of insecticides.It cleared by way of stock transfer after payment of duty, these goods in 50 kg pack to two job workers who in turn repacked it in retail smaller packs of 1 1/2 kgs. which the applicant sold. Notice was issued to the applicant, proposing to assess these goods on the value of the smaller packs on the ground that the applicant had done the repacking and it would have to pay duty on these packs. Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.2.91 crores approximately and imposed penalty on the company, and Rs.5 lakhs each on N.S.V. Ramani, M.Raman and A.G. Powar, employees of the company under rule 209A. These applications are for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty.2. At the relevant time (March 1994 to July 1996) there was not provision in note 2 to Chapter 38 of the tariff holding that such repacking to bulk to retail would amount to manufacture. Such a note was introduced on ...

M/S. Ajanta Transistor Clock Mfg. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed against the decision made in order-in-original No. 856/2000/CAC/CC/PSP dated 27.09.2000 by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai whereby he had confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 41,000/- on the appellants.2. The appellants are a transferee of a Value based Advance Licence issued to M/s. Ajanta Electronics Inc. The charge against the appellants was that they had availed input credit in the export of the goods which is prohibited under notification 203/92. The show cause notice was issued on 29.1.1999 which was replied to by the assessee on 18.6.1999. The appellants before us state that they have the certificate issued by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner about the reversal of the modvat credit. The adjudicating authority without looking into the reply of the appellant which mentioned the reversal of the modvat credit had decided the case against them. We have gone through the same and are of the view, after hearing both parties,...

M/S. Kunal Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal the appellant challenges the impugned order confirming the demand made under section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant states that it is the transferee of the advance licence issued to the licensee. It states that it had not given the bond in terms of notification 203/92. The appellant also relies on the judgment of the Tribunal in Plastchem Industries vs. CC 2. We have seen through the records and it is found that the adjudicating authority has held that duty is payable by the importer since the exemption under the notification becomes unavailable to the importer. He has also held that the noticee did not produce any evidence regarding non availment of modvat of credit.3. We have seen the judgment cited above and in paragraph 12 it has been held as follows:- "In the case before us, the Custom House had in question the declaration made by the importer when claiming the benefit of the exemption that Modvat credit had not been availed of. The benefit of exemption w...

M/S. Cipla Ltd., Amar Lulla, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT972Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications are for withdrawal of the appeals under section 32PA(1) of the Act on the ground that the appellants proposed to make an application to the Settlement Commission to have their cases settled. The departmental representative has no objection....

Rashtriya Sut Girni Mazdoor Sangh, Amravati Vs. Government of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR339; [2002(92)FLR927]; 2002(2)MhLj448

R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two writ petitions pertain to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960. As the learned Single Judge could not take up these matters because of heavy board, the Apex Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6617-6618 of 1999, requested Hon'ble the Chief Justice to assign the writ petitions to appropriate Division Bench for being decided at the earliest and that is how these matters have come up before us.2. Rashtriya Sut Girni Mazdoor Sangh, a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and also recognised as a representative Union under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for the local area ofAmravati Taluka in which respondent No. 6 is located (for short, 'the Union'), is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1335 of 1997. In the other writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 1402 of 1997, the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited, a Government Company, (for short, 'the Corporation...

Abdul Majeed Abdul Reheman Sarkhot Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1311; 2002BomCR(Cri)155; (2001)3BOMLR542; 2002CriLJ720; 2001(4)MhLj111

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the A.P.P.,.2. This application is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge wherein the application filed by the petitionerfor discharge from offence under section 489(b) and 489(c) and 420 of the I.P.C.3. The short fact is that the applicant is a businessman while tendering the amount of applicant's electric bill at the office of M.S.E.B. Sub-Division, Mahad, he had to present a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 100/- bearing No. 6AM 724288. It is alleged that he intended to use the counterfeit note as genuine currency note. However informant Balkrishna Mahadeo Pingale got suspicious about genuineness of the currency note because he could not find lion (trimurti) water seal, denomination water seal on the said note. Similarly paper used for the currency note was ordinary paper and therefore he went to the Accountant Mr. Waregaonkar. On perusal of the note he took it to the Asst...

P.S. Shrinivasan Vs. Mukesh Babu Financial Services Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR759; [2001]106CompCas597(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this notice of motion, the applicant seeks an order setting aside Insolvency Notice No. N/II/01. 2. The facts that are material and necessary for deciding this notice of motion are that an amount was due from Shaan Inter well (I) Ltd. to the respondent/judgment-creditor. Therefore, proceedings were started before the arbitrator against the company and the applicant. When the proceedings were started before the arbitrator, though the claim made by the respondent was not disputed, an objection was raised to the continuance of the arbitral proceedings on the ground that a reference was pending before the BIFR. The submission was that in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act'), the arbitral proceedings cannot continue. The learned arbitrator after considering this submission in detail rejected the objection holding that the provisions of Section 22 will not operate to stay the proceedings before the arbitrator. ...

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Madhukar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(93)FLR596]; (2002)IILLJ640Bom

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. This Revision Application has been filed by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013, seeking to revise the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazagaon, Mumbai dated June 5, 2000. The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint before this learned Magistrate under Section 85(a) of the ESI Act, alleging that certain contribution due under the Act of the ESI Corporation has not been remitted by the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the ESI Act. Therefore the respondent has committed offences under the said Section. 2. The respondent has filed an application before the learned Magistrate contending that more than a period of two years has been lapsed after taking cognizance of the complaint, the trial has not been commenced and that therefore the respondents are entitled to be discharged in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in common c...

Ravindra Subraria Kamat and ors. Vs. Mamlatdar and Administrator of De ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR352

K.K. Baam, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction for quashing the letter dated 3-4-2001. The petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing respondent No. 1 to administer oath to the petitioners so that the petitioners could take charge from the outgoing committee and a further direction to respondent No. 1 to fix a date for handing over of charge by respondents No. 3 to 10 to the petitioners. The petitioners have sought a declaration that the purported relaxation of the statutory date of election of the mazanias of the Mahalasa Devasthan dated 11-2-2001 on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2 is without jurisdiction and the petitioners have sought an interim relief restraining respondent No. 1 from issuing any notification declaring fresh date of elections of the mazania/body of the Members of Mahalasa Devalaya/Sausthan and/or conducting any such e...