Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Sameer Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The order impugned in these appeals was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kandla (wrongly typed as Commissioner of Customs in the order), adjudicating on the notice issued to each of the appellants on 22.4.1998. The notices demanded Central Excise duty on goods cleared by each of the appellants from their factory in the Kandla Free Zone to buyer in the domestic tariff areas between August 1996 and April 1997.The notices did not invoke the extended period contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act and were signed by the Assistant Commissioner.3. The common counsel for the appellants contends that the notices are barred by limitation. He further contends that the basis for the demand contained in the notice, that the appellant has failed to fulfil the prescribed export obligation is itself wrong. Subsequent to the issue of the notice, each of the appellan...

Colour Chem Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 7.75 lakhs approx. has been demanded from the applicant on the ground that the benefit of notification 201/79 would not be available tot he inputs used by it in the manufacture of various products, for the reason that in the course of their manufacture intermediate products, which were exempted from duty, emerged.2. The counsels or the applicant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (105) ELT 426 holding that the benefit of this notification cannot be denied for the reason that intermediate product exempted from duty has been emerged from the manufacture of final product.3. The Departmental representative contends that this decision requires reconsideration for the reason that it does not take note of the second proviso below the first paragraph of the notification, that the exemption contained in the notification will not apply to goods which are wholly exempted from duty or are chargeable to nil rate of duty.4. We are at this s...

G.B Gadre and Company, Pune and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT745Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three applications are for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty-duty of Rs.23.65 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in application E/Stay-2613/2000 in appeal E/3573/2000; duty of Rs. 6.27 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1.20 lakhs in application E/Stay-1296/2001 in appeal E/1377/2001, and penalty of Rs. 62,000/- in application E/Stay-1297/2001 in appeal E/1378/2001.3. G.B. Gadre and Company, the applicant, was at the relevant time, engaged in the manufacture of ventilation systems and strip lighting systems, made out of aluminium or of steel. These were to be fitted on the roofs of factory sheds to provide ventilation and natural light respectively. The duties have been demanded and penalties imposed on this firm on the finding of the adjudicating authority, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that the applicant failed to pay the duty, leviable at the rates applicable under headings 7308.90 and 7610.90 of the tariff, applicable respectively to parts of structures of aluminium an...

Purushottam Yashwant Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR829; 2002(2)BomCR337; (2002)4BOMLR14; 2002(3)MhLj492

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.3. Perused the records including the affidavits in reply filed by the respondents.4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.5. The petitioners challenge the order dated 14-6-2001 of the returning officer rejecting the application dated 13-6-2001 of the petitioners in relation to demand for common symbol to all the petitioners, who claim to have formed a panel for the election to the managing committee of the respondent No. 3-Jalgaon People's Co-operative Bank Limited. The demand for common symbol has been rejected on the ground that the Rule 26(5)(a) of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'Committee Rules') does not permit allocation of similar symbol to more than one candidate.6. Referring to various provisions of law contained in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (hereinaf...

Contract Laghu Udyog Kamgar Union Vs. V.G. Mohite, Assistant Labour Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR597; 2002(1)BomCR197; (2001)4BOMLR691; [2002(93)FLR58]; (2001)IILLJ1398Bom

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by respondent No. 1, dated May 12. 2000, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1971' for the sake of brevity). The petitioner prays for further direction against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to pay to the workmen named at Serial Nos. 1 to 12 of Exh. A w.e.f. from their respective dates of joining the respondent No. 2 - Establishment, the same wages and benefits as those paid and extended to the helpers/ mazdoors who are directly and permanently employed by respondent No. 2 factory at Wagle Estate. Thane and also to pay to Mr. Kishore Pawar, Plant Operator, w.e.f. his date of joining the respondent No. 2 the same wages/benefits extended to the skilled operators who are directly and permanently employed in the res...

National Textile Corporation Vs. Kamala Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR653; 2001(4)BomCR774; [2002(92)FLR493]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings arise out of an order passed by the Industrial Court holding that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The 1st to 7th respondents to these proceedings were engaged by certain Textile Mills prior to nationalisation by and under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 ('the Nationalisation Act.') The 1st and 3rd respondents were engaged in by the Mumbai Textile Mills in September 1980 and 21st August, 1976, respectively. The 2nd respondent was engaged on 2nd April, 1978 by Bharat Textile Mills. The 4th to 7th respondents were engaged by Jupiter Textile Mills on 9th May, 1973, 1st August, 1972, 8th June, 1973, and 10th April, 1978, respectively. Therefore, it is common ground that these were pre-nationalisation employees. The undertakings of the aforesaid Mills cam...

Gangaram Rama Gundkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ2578

ORDERS.G. Mahajan, J.1. Appellant No. 1 Gangaram Rama Gundkar and appellant No. 2 Sou. Laxmibai W/o Gangaram Gundkar, who were the accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in special N.D.P.S. Case No. 22/1993, were convicted and sentenced by the learned special Judge, Buldhana Accused No. 1 Gangaram was convicted of the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default to suffer R.I. for one year more. Accused No. 2 Smt. Laxmibai was convicted of the offence under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months more. Both the accused preferred the instant appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against them as above. During the pendency of this appeal accused/appellant No. 1 Gangaram was reported to be dead. So the appeal against him stood abated and the order notifying the abatemen...

Sunder Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals one filed by Sunder Casting Pvt. Ltd. and the other by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune are against a common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.2. Sunder Castings Pvt. Ltd. manufacture ingots of steel, and for this purpose received various inputs. It had declared in the declaration under Rule 57G as bars and rods. The department actually received the declaration is not for bars and rods as such but for end-cutting pieces which are converted into ingots. The bars and rods were cleared as such on payment of duty to the dealers. These dealers cut them into length required by their customers. The notice issued to them proposed to deny the credit of the duty taken on the ground that what was received was scrap, not prime material which had been cleared from the manufacturer's premises. We note that credit was taken on the basis of gate passes issued by such manufacturers endorsed to Sunder Casting Pvt. Ltd on the basis of certificate issued by the jurisd...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Morarjee Gokuldas Spgt. and Wvg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT184Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts leading to this application is that the Asstt.Commissioner held that the assessee could not take credit on endorsed invoice. The assessee appealed against this order to the Commissioner(Appeals). In that appeal reliance was placed on the Tribunals order No.318/7 in appeal No.E/1487/97 filed by Devangere Cotton Mills in which the Tribunal had held that even after endorsement, the invoice continues to be an invoice as contemplated by law and holds good for taking credit. The Commissioner(Appeals) took note of this decision and held that in the normal circumstances, if one or two novices of this nature were involved, the Tribunal's decision could have applied. However, since 87 invoices are involved and duty of Rs.1.5 crore, the benefit of Tribunal's decision would not be available. He found duplication of original packing. He, therefore declined to apply the Tribunal decision and remanded the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner to determine on evidence provided before him pay...

Swajit Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT640Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty of Rs. 3.87 lakhs has been demanded, on the ground that Slats which are part of conveyors used for carrying sugar cane are correctly classifiable under chapter heading 84.31 and not under chapter heading 8428.00 as classified by the assessee.3. We are not, prima facie, convinced by the contention of the assessee that the goods have been correctly classified under chapter heading 84.28 Chapter heading 84.31 covers parts of goods classifiable under heading 84.25 to 84.30. The assessee's contention suggests that this heading only applies to such goods as parts of goods classifiable under heading 84.25. This is prima facie unacceptable in terms of section note 2(a) to Section XVI of Chapter 84.4. The next contention is that once the classification is approved under chapter heading 84.28, notice for recovery of the amount cannot be issued under classification modified later by Section 35E of the Act. On this, we find some force in the light of judgements of the Supreme Court in Uni...