Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Bank of India Vs. Kamlakar Vishwambhar Joshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR663; 2001(4)BomCR756; (2001)4BOMLR581; [2001(91)FLR296]; (2001)IILLJ1463Bom; 2001(4)MhLj591

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, Returnable forthwith. The First Respondent, who is an Advocate, has appeared in person. The First Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. The First Respondent was appointed as a clerk in the Bank of India, which is the Petitioner before the Court, in 1966. In 1975, he was promoted to the Officers Cadre but, subsequently on 8th March, 1976, he was reverted back to the Clerical Cadre at his request. On 24th October, 1987, the First Respondent was placed under suspension on the charge of having misappropriated the funds of the Petitioner to the extent of Rs. 30,000/ -. A disciplinary enquiry came to be held thereafter, upon which, an order dated 2nd September. 1989 came to be passed, dismissing the First Respondent since the charge of misconduct was held to have been proved. An Industrial dispute was thereafter raised and referred to adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. On 14th February, 1997, the Indust...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. V.K. Pandey, Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Bom)493; [2001]251ITR209(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The validity of the impugned notice dated March 31, 2000, issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1995-96 is in issue in this writ petition. According to the Assessing Officer, income for the aforestated year escaped assessment because the company had not provided for the excise/ customs duty on stocks lying in the bonded warehouse on the ground that the duty was payable only on removal of goods from the bonded warehouse.2. Facts :The petitioner, Hindustan Lever Limited, manufactures and imports raw materials for its manufacturing activities and bonds the same before removal. They pay excise duty and customs duty only at the time when goods are removed from the bonded warehouse. In their accounts for the year ending March 31, 1995, a note was appended stating that the company had not made the provision for excise/customs duty. On November 30, 1995, the company filed its return for the assessment year 1995...

Commr. of C. (import). Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT436Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the importer is entitled to claim benefit of Notification 154/86 in respect of items which form part of a contract which was registered under the Project Import Regulations cleared claiming benefit of assessment under Heading 98.01 of the tariff. Adjudication upon the notice issued in this regard, the Assistant Collector disallowed the claim on the ground that once the classification of the goods had been claimed in heading 98.01, it was not permissible for the importer to have them classified in heading 84.61, and hence denied the exemptions claimed for basic duty contained in Notification 154/86 and for auxiliary duty in Notification 312/86.2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon two decisions of the Tribunal, allowed this appeal and set aside the Assistant Collector's order. Hence this appeal by the department.3. The ground in the appeal, not very clearly expressed, is that heading 98....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Arco Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the respondent was carrying on the business of manufacturing railway parts falling under chapter 85. The question involved is regarding the availment of modvat credit. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 4 thereof has held as follows:- "4. The impugned order and the submissions have been considered by me carefully. The allegation of invoice not containing the printed Sr.No. has not been mentioned in the show cause notice. It is observed from the invoice that it contains a Sr.No.63 which has been stamped. The expression `print' includes stamping as well as typing. Moreover, the dealer before issuing the invoice is required to indicate the Sr.No. of the modvatable invoices that are likely to be issued in a financial year to the jurisdictional Superintendent.Since the stamping of the number on the invoice also amounts to printing and that there is no evidence that the said dealer did not communicate the printed number to the jurisdictional Assist...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Gopaldas Visram and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Two grounds have been stated in this appeal by the department. The first ground is that duty has been taken before receiving the documents in the factory. I verified the document myself. Subsidiary gate pass No. 3578 was issued on 7.2.1994. Credit was taken on 14.2.1994. The ground taken in the show cause notice is absolutely wrong. Therefore the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct.The second ground is about number of endorsement. There cannot be any prohibition of number of endorsement. This is what the Tribunal held in the cases of CCE, Jaipur vs. Sunrise Technoparks. 1997 (90) ELT 468 and CCE, Chandigarh vs. Thapsons Steels (P) Ltd. 1995 (79) ELT 523. Hence both the grounds of the appellant department cannot be accepted. Appeal stands dismissed....

Raj Petroleum Products Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In these cases, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I has confirmed a total duty demand of Rs. 1,36,81,373/- against the applicant company and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,71,28,858/- upon the company. In addition, she has imposed penalties of Rs. 50.00 lakhs each on the three directors. She has levied interest of Rs. 97,21,742/-. Out of the total duty demand, an amount of Rs. 97,21,742/- has been confirmed on the ground that the applicant company manufactured and cleared petroleum speciality products without payment of duty under cover of invoices of M/s. J.I.Traders. An amount of Rs. 39,59,631/- has been confirmed on account of modvat credit wrongly availed on inputs not received in the factory of the applicants.2. The case of the department on the aspect of clandestine removal is mainly based upon documents such as gate register pertaining to the relevant period maintained by the watchman of the applicant company showing receipts and removals in and from the factory premise...

Nilkamal Plastic and Allied Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive pre deposit of the duty and penalty and proceeded to take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. It is the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order that the appellants had availed of double benefit of modvat credit as well as duty free clearances under notification 203/92 in respect of advance licences. The position is clarified by the learned counsel for the appellants that the benefit of notification 203/92 relates to two value based advance licences, while notification 204/92, is attracted in respect of one special imprest licence. Mr Mondal submits that the appellant had not received the show cause notice when the personal hearing was fixed, that personal hearing fixed for 22.9.00 was adjourned but the fresh date of hearing was not communicated to the appellants, and that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the appellants had noted the fresh date of hearing namely 12.10.00. He submits that the ben...

M/S Colt Cables P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the assessee has to follow the provisions of Rule 57F(4) or F(18) in respect of waste which is generated in the process of working on ingots. The question has been considered by the larger bench of the Tribunal in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE 2. In this case the assessee is manufacturing wires and cables falling under chapter sub-heading 8544.00. Show cause notices dated 9.4.1999 and 3.11.1999 were issued demanding Rs. 1,76,883/- resulting in the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing a penalty of Rs. 26,000/-. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the same. Hence the present appeal.3. In view of the judgment by the larger bench of the Tribunal mentioned in the first paragraph of the judgment, I allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and grant relief to the appellant.This order has been passed after waiving the pre-deposit and with consent of both sides. Appli...

M/S Sarvodaya Laboratory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) dismisses the appeal without giving an opportunity to the appellant by sending personal hearing notice. In this case this has not been done. Hence the impugned order is set aside and I remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the matter de novo in accordance with law, i.e. after hearing the appellant fully. The Commissioner (Appeals) should also give hearing to the appellant in application relating to section 35F as well. Appeal is allowed and remanded....

M/S Neer Extrusions (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could dispose of the application under section 35F and dismiss the appeal itself without hearing the appellant.2. It is one thing for the Commissioner to dispose of waiver of deposit application under section 35F without hearing. It does not mean that the Commissioner (Appeals) can dispose of the appeal itself without giving opportunity of hearing. Hence I set aside the impugned order, following the judgment of the Tribunal in Entek IRD International (I) Ltd. vs. CCE 2000 ELT 515 which itself follows the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Ricoh India Ltd. (34) RLT 231, and allow the appeal. The commissioner (Appeals) shall hear the appellants in respect of the section 35F application as well and decide the matter in accordance with law....