Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Ranbir Singh Chhabra, Proprietor, Nation Dairy Vs. Municipal Corporati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR172; (2002)104BOMLR791

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioner has been carrying on the business of the sale of milk in an establishment conducted in the name and style of 'National Dairy'. The premises of the Petitioner consist of three shops bearing Nos. 7, 7-A and 8 situated at Navalkar Wadi, Caves Road, Jogeshwari (East), Bombay-400060. The Petitioner applied for a licence and one was issued to him by the Municipal Corporation under Section 412A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 some time in the year 1988. The licence which was issued to the Petitioner is stated to have been renewed by the Municipal Corporation from time to time until 31st December, 1994. By letters dated 24th December, 1994 and 15th May, 1995 the Petitioner applied for a renewal of the licence. By a communication dated 28th June, 1995 the Petitioner was informed by the Medical Officer of Health in the K (East) Ward that the licence had been cancelled in accordance with the order dated 2nd March, 1995 passed by the Municipal Co...

M/S. Sunder Carpet Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. No stay application was initially filed with the appeal. When this was pointed out to the applicant, it is now filed on 28.5.2001.2. The order of the Commissioner demanded duty and imposed penalty on the ground that the applicant had availed modvat credit on the goods which were exported. Therefore, the benefit of Notfn. No. 203/92-Cus will not be available.3. The contention in the appeal and in the reply to the notice is that exported goods were hand-made carpets not liable to duty. However, there is no evidence to show that what was exported was hand-made carpet. No document such as shipping bill, bill of entry has been filed. It was the contention of the application that the department did not supply copies of the documents which were asked for. A copy of letter dated 24.10.2000 from the Chief Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi to the Commissioner of Customs(Exports), Mumbai had been produced. This only requests the Commissioner to consider whether it would be feasible to inform...

Shahad Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Tribunal's order in appeal No. E/807, 3912/99 & E/1148/2000-BOM passed on 11.5.2000 remanded the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner to determine the question as to whether the price of the container in which the appellant's goods were packed is to be included in the value of the finished product. An application was subsequently moved for rectifying this order on the ground that this was not the issue before the Asstt. Commissioner. The issue was whether the cost of the packing supplied by the buyer should be included in the assessable value. That such cost is not includable is established in the Supreme Court judgment in Hindustan Polymer vs CCE 1989 (43) ELT 165. After hearing, the Tribunal accepted the position and rectified the mistake thereunder and modified that order holding that the cost of the packing supplied by the buyers was not includable in the assessable value.2. The order now under consideration also relates to the same appellant and raises the same question. ...

Polyset Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC483Tri(Mum.)bai

1. An application has been filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for waiver of payment of duty amounting to Rs.50,46,332.00 and equal amount of penalty.2. When the matter was heard, since it is found that the matter has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Interplas (India) Private Ltd and M/s. Calcutta Springs Ltd. vs. CCE, Calcutta III & II reported in 2001 (75) ECC 553 (Tri), we thought fit to take up the appeal itself for disposal after waiving the deposit and with the consent of both sides.3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Insulated Liners, which is used by the Indian Railways i n its railway track construction. These liners are primarily used by the Railways for fastening rails to concrete sleepers. While laying down a railway line, first the sleepers made of wood or concrete are laid; on the sleepers the steel rails ARE PUT. The rails are fastened to the sleepers with the help of fastening joint assembly, which incu...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Kailash Chand Gupta

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Kailash Chand Gupta, the respondent to this appeal imported in June 1994 a consignment of cloves of Tanzanian origin. There were disputes relating to the value claimed by the importer of the goods and its eligibility to import them. We are in this appeal only concerned with the value, that being the issue raised in the department's appeal. By its letter dated 8.11.94, the importer told the Asst. Collector as follows. "Regarding out 450 bags cloves we want to state that we do not want any personal hearing and show cause notice. Your rate of US $ 850 PMT for duty is acceptable to us.2. The Dy. Collector fixed the value on this basis without further discussion. An appeal was filed to the Collector (Appeals) by the importer questioning this value. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention and reduced the value to US $ 650 on the ground that the Dy.Collector does not give any further basis for arriving at the value and the order is silent with regarding to the transaction. This co...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Meera Enterprises and Dukes

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. No reason is advanced in the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals by the Commissioner. It is, therefore, not possible to condone the delay. The application is dismissed....

Mayur Colour Ltd. Vs. C.C.Ex, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

In addition to the fact that the applicant already deposited the duty demanded of Rs. 3.82 lakhs, it has prima facie, excellent case on merits. Its action shows prima facie compliance in spirit and int letter with the provisions of Rule 57CC. Accordingly I waive deposit of the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and list the appeal for hearing on 6th July, 2001....

Eden Textronics Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. An application for stay and waiver of payment of penalty of Rs. 12 lakh has been filed and posted for hearing today.2. Fact of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of man-mad fabrics and cotton fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The applicants' case fall within the purview of Rule 96 ZQ of the Cental Excise Rules read with section 3A of the Central Excise Act. It appears that for the month of April and May, 99 there was a delay for payment of duty by 4 days in respect of April, 1999 and 2 days in respect of May, 1999. The applicants plead before us that as far as April, 99 is concerned, the applicants were expecting certain money from the department towards abatement. The said sum did not get paid within the expected time. Therefore, there was some delay in payment of the duty.As far as May, 99 is concerned, the document available with the assessee in the form of letter written by the applicants' advocate indica...

Surya Morphy Richards Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1376Tri(Mum.)bai

1. While passing the stay order, the Tribunal had noted that the claim of financial hardship has not been supported by any evidence. The application for modification of the stay order is made on the ground of financial hardship. Vide letter dated 13.6.2001 the advocate of the applicant requests decision on the application for modification.2. The only evidence in support of the financial hardship is the Profit & Loss Accounts of the applicant for the year ended 31.3.96, 31.3.97 and 31.3.98. Apart from the fact that it is not possible to come to the financial hardship only from the Profit & Loss Accounts without considering the Balance Sheet, absolutely there is no statement as to the financial hardship of the applicant for the period upto 31.3.2001.3. In these circumstances we modify our stay order. If the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is not deposited within a month from the date of receipt of the order and compliance thereof is shown to the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal before u...

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Sunshine Metal and Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issues in this appeal are identical with the issues dealt with in our order in Universal Steel Agencies & Ors. Vs. CCE Kandla in appeal C/478 to 480/00. Therefore applying the ration of that decision we find no ground in the appeal and dismiss the appeal....