Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A. Square Founders Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By our Order No. C-I/3708/WZB/2000 dt. 14.10.2000 we had remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The impugned order has been passed by Collector of Central Excise & Customs Pune. Hence the words Assistant Commissioner contained in Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the order dt.14.10.2000, we change to Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Pune....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Aswa-bel Corporation, Vasai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is whether the appellant was entitled to avail the benefit of notification 14/92 when it was covered by exemption contained in the notification 1/93. The appeal question the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that it was so available.2. In its decision in Prominent Plastic Industries Vs. CCE 1997 (93) ELT 299, the Tribunal, considering the same two notifications, has held that it is permissible for an assesee to claim any one of these two.Following the ratio of that decision, we decline to interfere....

M/S. Aditya Fuels Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the month of June 1999 a quantity of about 10,000 MTs. of Sugar was imported from Thailand at a price of 195 US$ PMT C&F FO, Kandla. At the time of import Customs Authorities found that through the same ship a quantity of 3850 MTs was also imported by some other importers at a pice of 216 US $ from the same country of origin. Therefore a show cause notice was issued on 15.12.99 demanding value of difference in duty as well as charging the importers with the misdeclaration in regard to value and presentation of false invoices in terms of provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The show cause notice also proposed to imposed penalties under sections 112 as well as 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The replies were filed. Statements of importers were recorded and after due enquiry the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla had confirmed the show cause notice enhancing the value as indicated in the show cause notice. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on ACT Shipping, the Appellan...

M/S. Presto Plastic Recycling Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this matter an application for stay has been filed requiring waiver of redeposit of duty of Rs. 76,69,185/- being the Customs duty demanded. By the order dt. 9,10.2000 Commissioner of Customs Kandla has confirmed the duty at the aforesaid amount for violation of Notification No.133/94 Cus dt. 22.6.94 and Notification No. 126/94 CE dt. 2.9.94. The appeal itself was taken up for disposal after waiving redeposit with consent of both sides as appeal lies in a narrow compass.2. The appellant is a unit working under Kandla Free Trade Zone. It was availing exemption under Notification No. 133/94 Cus dt. 22.6.94. It imported Plastic Scrap. They were thinking of using the said raw material for the purpose of manufacturing granules. They imported machinery worth Rs.32.59,910/- and also raw material worth Rs. 70,15,879/- they stored above machinery as well as raw material along with finished goods worth Rs.4,60,175/- in the unit. It would appear that there was a fire on 27.12.98 and it has...

N.S. Corporation, Mumbai Vs. Commissioner Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal, whether emergence of Poly White NSR, Cidalene White RN and Ultra White CD obtained by diluting Ultra White RNI with water purchased by the appellant on payment of duty is the result of a process of manufacture thereby rendering these three products liable to duty.2. This question has already been answered by the Tribunal in its decision in appeal E/12/93-C of the same appellant (N.S. Corporation Vs. CCE), holding that dilution with water did not result in changing the nature of the character of the product which the appellant purchased on payment of duty and therefore the emergence of any products obtained by such dilution would not amount to manufacture.Accordingly, no duty could be demanded on these three products.3. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief according to law....

A.P. Khandaria and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By our order dt. 23.4.2001 Order No. C-I/1345/WZB/2001-Mum certified on 1.5.2001 we have dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that modification of the Tribunal's order dt. 6.2.1996 does not stand. In the said order it has also been mentioned and found that opportunity had been given to the appellant to represent its case. The application itself did not make any grounds for modifications of the order. The applicants did not choose to come and explain its case therefore the application was dismissed and it was also ordered that case would be posted on 12.6.2001.2. Today when the cases were taken up and application has been filed hearing dt. 6.6.2001 that Company is not financially sound enough to make the payment and due to the death of the one of the director Shri A.P. Khandaria and ill health of B.P. Khandheria. The hearing is not being attended as a prayer has also been made to the effect that due to the ill health of B.P. Khanderia huge loss of incurred. It is...

Esteem Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.H. Parekh and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR112; (2002)1BOMLR619; 2002(2)MhLj216

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By these Chamber Summonses the Petitioners are seeking to amend the original Arbitration Petition Nos. 364/2000 and 363/2000 so as to add certain grounds viz. to add the grounds enumerated in Exh. 'A' to the Chamber Summons No. 284/2001 so far as Arbitration Petition No. 364/2000 is concerned, and to add the grounds mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons No. 285/2001 so far as Arbitration Petition No. 364/2000 is concerned.2. Mr. Narulla, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that though at the time when the petitions were dictated, the grounds were not dictated and on the next date, the grounds were dictated to another stenographer, but the same were omitted to be included in the Petitions which were filed on 6th October, 2000. Mr. Narulla contended that in the interest of justice these grounds should be allowed to be added by way of an amendment to the petitions. Otherwise, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.3...

Namdeo Dyanoba Garad Vs. Superintendent, Pay Distribution Unit and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR791; 2001(4)BomCR380; (2002)4BOMLR252; [2002(92)FLR186]; 2002(3)MhLj431

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, assails the instructions issued by the Auditor in the Department of respondent No. 5, reducing the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 600-1030 to Rs. 500-900 on 31-1-1986.2. The petitioner was initially appointed under the respondent No. 3 with effect from 1-7-1968 on the basis of his SSC qualification, though he was, at the relevant time, prosecuting his studies in III year of B.Sc. course. He was brought in regular pay scale of Rs. 105-4-125 with effect from 1-1-1970 and he completed his Diploma in Education (2 year's course) in June, 1975. He passed his B.A. examination in 1976 and therefore, he was given the pay scale as applicable to the graduate trained teacher with effect from 13-6-1977. In May, 1978 the petitioner passed M.A. examination and as soon as the academic year 1978-79 commenced, he was called upon to teach in the Secondary School and he was subsequently promoted as a Lecturer in the Jr....

Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. V.B. Desai and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR182; [2002]112CompCas143(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this Chamber Summons the defendants are seeking the relief of rejection of the Plaint and/or striking off of the Plaint and dismissal of the suit as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Defendants has submitted that in the instant case, the transactions involved between the plaintiff and defendants were in the nature of ready forward transactions. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. The Custodian reported in : [1997]3SCR51 , Mr. Tulzapurkar has pointed out that in the said case the Supreme Court has held that in such a ready forward transaction, the forward leg aspect is illegal and impermissible in law.3. The Chamber Summons taken out by the defendants mainly proceeds on basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme court. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the learned Counsel for the def...

Rallis Group Employees Union Vs. Rallis India Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR462]; (2002)ILLJ173Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The writ petition is directed against an interim order passed by the Industrial Court on April 27, 2001, by which an application for the grant of relief by the Union came to be rejected. The dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement dated February 12, 2001, which was entered into by the First Respondent with the Fifth Respondent to these proceedings. By and under the terms of the Agreement, the First Respondent has agreed to sell to the Fifth Respondent, the whole of its Pharmaceutical Business Undertaking as a going concern for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 49 crores. The Pharmaceutical Business Undertaking is defined in clause (1) of the recitals to the Agreement as follows:'1. The Seller is engaged, inter alia, in the business of the manufacture and marketing of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals and other medicinal preparations. The Seller has...