Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Ajit Vitthal Karanje and ors. Vs. Shivaji University, Kolhapur and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom15; 2001(3)ALLMR646; 2001(4)BomCR333; 2002(1)MhLj747

B. P. Singh, C. J. 1. The petitioners herein 3 in number, have filed the instant Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, to permit them to take the examination scheduled to be held on 19th June, 2001 of the IInd Year B. Pharmacy Course. It appears that subsequently petitioner No. 1 has been permitted to take the examination and, therefore, this Writ Petition was pressed only on behalf of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioners herein were admitted to the B. Pharmacy Course in the Government College of Pharmacy at Karad, which was then affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as 'the Health Univeristy'). They were admitted in July 1999 to the said course, and they took the 1st Year Examination in June 2000. Unfortunately, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 failed to clear four papers and were, therefore, declared failed. It is not in dispute that...

M.J. Pharmacheuticals, G.M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT195Tri(Mum.)bai

2. M.J. Pharmaceuticals (MJ for short), is a manufacturer of medicaments and other pharmaceutical goods. It placed an order with Eli Lilly Exports, Geneva, for supply of 124.889 million international units (IU) of zinc insulin crystals and 180 million litres of sterile beef insulin seed suspension. The total value of the order was US $ 3,12,420.50. A letter of credit was opened on 21.12.1992 for the payment of the goods by Bank of India, Mumbai No. Credit/SUSU/Zurich.On 22nd December, 1992 Eli Lilly Exports told MJ by fax that in view of the "heavy constraints on airfreight due to Christmas time, goods would be shipped through World Courier on 23rd or 24th to arrive at its office on 27th or 28th December. This was followed by a fax on 23rd December, intimating the address of the Mumbai agent of World Courier.These goods were despatched to the appellant by Eli Lilly International Corporation of New York of USA by a courier and arrived at Delhi on the night of 27th December, 1992. The d...

Hicel Pharma Ltd., Pattancheru Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty has been demanded on the ground that the appellant contravened the condition contained in notification 203/92 that modvat credit should not have ben availed in the manufacture of export products.Therefore, goods imported by it were not entitled to the exemption under the notification.2. On the last occasions the applicants was absent and unrepresented.Notice was therefore issued to it to produce evidence in support of its contention that it had availed exemption not under notification 203/92 but under notification 204/92 which does not contain any condition relating to modvat credit. There is no response this notice.3. The applicant is absent and unrepresented today also. In the absence of documents such as bill of entry, that supports the applicant's claim we are unable to find prima facie cases for the applicant. We therefore direct deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs within a month from the receipt of this order. On such deposit being made within a month from the receipt of this order ...

Jayesh Plastics and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1320Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Jayesh Plastics, Guru Plastics, Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Liba Enterprises, Altop Industries, Rozey Plastics, Zain Plastics and Krishna Plastics are job workers who manufacture goods under consideration out of material supplies by Barish Plast Pvt. Ltd. (Barish for short). The other appellants are employees or partners of either one of the job worker or of Barish.2. We are concerned in these groups of appeals with classification of gods manufactured by the job workers out of materials supplied by Barish, their consequent liability to duty related to limitation and liability to penalty. The gods manufactured by the job workers are described as fittings for running water gutters. The eight job workers in question did not pay duty upon these goods and notice was issued to them demanding duty for the clearances made between April 1995 to May, 1998, by invoking the extended period contained int he provision under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. The notice also proposed pe...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT691Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the material handling equipment manufactured by the respondent in its factory and used captively therein for manufacture of the excisable goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification 217/86. The notification exempts inputs manufactured in a factory and used in that factory or any other factory of the same manufacturer for manufacturing goods which are liable to duty.2. It is not disputed that but for the provisions of clause (1) of the explanation to the notification, these goods are inputs. Clause (1) excludes from the scope of inputs machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing any goods, or for bringing out any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. The Assistant Commissioner has denied the exemption in view of this clause, saying that the goods were not so used. On appeal from this order ...

Goyal Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1013Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty, penalties and fine for redemption of confiscation of plant, building and machinery as detailed in the annexure. Vimla Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Bijaykumar D.Agarwal and Shiva Exports are absent and unrepresented, and requested fro adjournment on the ground that their advocate has to attend Court at Navsari. No vakalatnama has been filed. Copy of some railway ticket is enclosed but this does not contain anyone's name. We therefore declined to adjourn.2. The delay of 20 days in filing the appeal of Radhey Shaym Garg is condoned.3. We are concerned in these applications with the scope of the exemption contained in notification 34/94 to textured yarn manufactured out of filament yarn imported under the duty exemption scheme of the 1992-97 Policy, which is subject to the condition that it is proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector that the textured yarn is to be exported or used in the manufacture of any other goods which are to be ...

Goa Bottling Co. Ltd, N.R. Prabhu Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Cent ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)LC44Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Goa Bottling Company Ltd is a manufacturer of aerated beverages.This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa adjudicating upon a notice issued to it and to its employees. The notice alleged short levy of duty by the manufacturer on two counts.The first was that, production of beverages entered in the RG1 register on which manufacturer paid duty fell short of the ratio arrived between the quantities of beverage base and the beverage. The ratio indicated that one of the beverage base would yield 400 crates of the soft drink.The actual production of beverage fell short of this ratio varying from of 0.4% for Limca, one of beverages, to 2.5% for Gold Spot. The second ground for demand of duty is that, in the monthly sales report that the manufacturer furnished to the supplier of the beverage base, it indicated quantities which were often higher than the quantities of production recorded in the RG1 register. The third ground related to wrong taking of the m...

Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT145Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Duty of Rs.42.55 crores approximately and penalty of Rs. 46.55 crores have been demanded and imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant manufactured a turbo alternator on which it did not pay the appropriate duty.3. The applicant entered into a contract with GVK Industries for setting up turbo alternator at the site of the latter at Jegurupadu. It imported a turbine and alternator separately from Germany. IT assembled both these machines together at site in order to create a turbo alternator. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant's case is clearly covered by the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited Vs. CCE2000 (120) ELT 273. The Supreme Court found in that judgment that the turbo alternator which come into existence as a result of the coupling and alignment of the turbine and alternator could not be removed from the site at which it came into existence to another site without losing ...

Epc Irrigation Limited and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT84Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal E/1042/95 is the classification of pipes and fittings through which the appellant claims form apart of sprinklers and irrigation systems. The question in appeal E/3262/2000 is the valuation of such pipes and fittings. In order impugned in appeal E/1042/95 Commissioner has held these pipes and fittings to be classifiable not as claimed by he appellant as irrigation system classifiable under heading 84.24 of the tariff, but pipes, tubes or hoses or their fittings under heading 39.17. The order impugned in the other appeal is on the duty payable on such goods.2. We have heard the counsels for the appellant in two appeals and the departmental representative at considerable length.3. The Commissioner holds in his order that while the other parts manufactured by the appellant which he does not specify, but which we are hold by its counsel of sprinklers of metal, drippers, pipes, couplers, etc., are classifiable as parts of irrigation systems....

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR303; 2002(2)BomCR368

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. The petitioner challenges the order issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad on 7-8-2000 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 17th May, 2001. The order dated 7th August, 2000 was apparently passed in exercise of powers under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the said Act.)4. Few facts, relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is the Chairman of the Jalna District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jalna. A show cause notice dated 10-3-2000 came to be issued to the petitioner and other Directors of the said Bank by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad calling upon the petitioner and others to show cause as to why the action should not be taken in terms of the provisions contained in ...