Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Sawant Food Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. With the consent of both the parties and after waiving the deposit, we have taken up the appeal for disposal.2. The appellants are engaged in the export of wide range of Frozen Fish other than Shrimps. This appeal relates to fish only. The Government of India by Notification No.203/92 Cus dated 19.5.92 exempted goods exported into India against the value based advance licence from the whole of the Customs duty leviable thereon under certain conditions. In this case, the appellants were granted Advance Licence No.306379 dated 14.8.92 under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme to enable the appellants to import raw materials required for the manufacture of fishing net. The licence issued to the appellants indicated in quantity and value. The DEEC book mentions the applicable notification was not 203/92 but 204/92 at page 20 and 27 of the appeal paper book. Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 21.8.2000 indicates that the appellant was charged with violation of Condition (v)(a...

M/S. Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1153Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Today an application for stay of collection of Rs. 61,444/- was posted. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal after waiving pre-deposit and with the consent of both the parties.2. The appellant is having a Rolling Mill manufacturing bars of iron & steel falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 7214.90. In terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, with effect from 1.8.97, the appellant gave option under sub-rule (3) of the Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules having the distance parameter of 180mm filed declaration dated 21.8.97 along with the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The production of the assessee for the year 1996-97 was fixed at 2275.055 MT. The annual production as per formula comes to 4146.955 MT. The annual capacity production was fixed by the Commissioner and thereby duty that was payable by the assessee came to Rs. 1,03,674/- at the rate of Rs. 300/- PMT. The appellant was paying the same. By its letter date...

Sudarshan Khaitan and anr. Vs. Patheja Forgings Auto Parts and Manufac ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1990; 2001BomCR(Cri)888; (2001)3BOMLR565; 2001CriLJ3872; 2001(4)MhLj62

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. This matter arises out of a complaint filed by the respondent before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 61,25,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Fort Branch. Bombay on 14.9.1994, in favour of the respondent. The cheque was presented for encashment and the same was dishonored on 17.9.1994. The respondent again presented the cheque and again it was dishonoured on 19.10.1994. After it was twice dishonoured, the respondent had sent a notice of dishonour on 28.10.1994 calling upon the petitioner to make payment within three weeks from the date of receipt of notice. Thereupon the respondent again presented the cheque and got it dishonored on 2.2.1995 and another notice was sent on 7.2.1995.2. The question therefore arose is whether the complainant after the cause of action was being arisen, on the issuance of notice of...

Hiten Sagar and anr. Vs. Imc Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)890; (2001)3BOMLR563; 2001CriLJ4311; 2001(3)MhLj659

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das. J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, None appeared for the Respondent No. 1.2. This matter arises under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Respondent filed a complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on account of the dishonouring of a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- issued by the petitioner on 8.12.1998. The aforesaid cheque was dishonoured and subsequently notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the N. I. Act was served and the same was delivered on 19.4.1999 to the petitioners- After that the aforesaid complaint was filed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Marwadi submits that the complaint itself shows that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner No. 1 for the liability of the petitioners 2 and 3. It is necessary in this context to refer to the relevant paragraph contained in the notice dated 19.4.1999 :'My client states that Sai Krupa Network are the franchise of my client under an agreement date...

Metal Box India Limited Vs. Association of Engineering Workers Union a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR545; [2001(91)FLR469]; (2002)IVLLJ946Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these writ proceedings, the correctness of an order dated April 5, 1995, passed by the Industrial Court at Bombay has been called into question, both by the employer and by one of the Unions representing the workmen. The order of the Industrial Court arose out of a complaint filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by the Association of Engineering Workers which is the First Respondent in Writ Petition No. 930 of 1995 and the Petitioner in companion Writ Petition No. 1138 of 1995. The complaint which was filed was on the basis that the employer, Metal Box India Limited had committed an unfair labour practice under Items 2, 3 and 6 of Schedule II and Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court by its impugned order has come to the conclusion that there was an unfair labour practice committed by the employer under. Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV viz., by fa...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Subhash Sitaram Sangare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1541; 2002BomCR(Cri)218; 2001CriLJ4468

Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order 31st Dec. 1985 passed by Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1985, acquitting the Respondent/ accused Subhash Sitaram Sangare, who had been charged for offences punishable Under Section 376, 354 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case in nutshell can be narrated as follows :A private complaint dated 24th August, 1984 came to be lodged in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri by the complainant Mangala Balu Mavalankar (PW 3) against the Respondent Subhash Sitaram Sangare for offences punishable Under Sections 354, 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the said complaint by her that she was resident of Fagarvathar, Ratnagiri and was staying in her own house along with her parents. She was working as a maid servant with one Advocate Patane, and that, she used to leave her house early in the mor...

Bloom Decor Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT785Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty on goods imported by the appellant on the ground that benefit of notification 203/92 was not available to them, for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods.3. In his order, the Commissioner records the submission of the importer that while in some cases modvat credit was not availed of whatever credit had been valid of had bene reversed prior to export of goods. He has said that his request to the importer to produce a certificate by the Jurisdictional Central Excise officer showing that their case would be covered by the scheme of amnesty in the matter announced in the Board circular dated 10.1.93 was not complied with.The counsel for the appellant claims before us that credit which was taken has been reversed before the goods were cleared from the factory of the manufacturer, hance, legally, credit had not been taken at all on the goods. He also contends that demand i...

M/S. Air India Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking in the Government of India and the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries of Cabinet Secretariat for pursuing the appeal has not been produced despite an opportunity having been given to produce it.3. In the absence of any information as to the status of the application clearance, if it has been made, we dismiss this appeal for want of clearance. The appellant is however at liberty to seek revival if and when such clearance is received....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Winsome Paper Box Mfg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to modvat credit by the appellant of the duty paid on chemicals used in the manufacture of sand moulds which are in turn used for the manufacture of castings of metals.2. By the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial by the Assistant Collector of the credit that the appellant took on the ground that sand moulds were exempted from payment of duty by notification 177/86, and therefore the provisions of Rule 57D will come into play. The Assistant Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) have relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal to support their views. However, subsequent to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order the larger bench of the Tribunal has found in Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 1996 (82) ELT 575, that sand moulds are not marketable, and therefore not excisable. They are brought into existence for the sole purpose of casting the metal, and therefore, ch...

Sangeet Syntex Ltd. and Rahul Modi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT1185Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.84 crores approx., penalty of equivalent amount on Sangeet Syntex Ltd., the manufacturer and penalty under 209A of Rs. 18.4 lakhs on Rahul Modi, the director of the manufacturer. Fine for redemption of plant and machinery of the manufacturer of Rs. 18.4 lakhs is also required to be deposited. An application for bringing on record a corrigendum to the order of the Commissioner has also been field and is allowed.2. The order demands duty on many consignments of textured polyester yarn cleared by the manufactured in addition to what has been paid on it before being cleared from the factory. The department's case set out in the show cause notice is that the purchaser shown on the invoice, under which the yarn was sold is non-existent. This is supported by the fact hat the goods were not cleared directly to he purchaser but sent to warehouse of the carrier at Bhiwandi. Therefore by application of rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, ...