Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Ask International India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh, and fine for redemption of the goods of Rs. 2.50 lakhs.2. The confiscation has been ordered, and penalty imposed, on the finding that eth applicant misdeclared the value an description of cables imported by it, claiming them to be wire ropes for the purpose of benefits under the Duty Exemption Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) Scheme, whereas the goods were in fact cables for using as automobile clutches.3. In the light of the fact that the counsel for the appellant does not deny that the goods can be used as clutch cables for automobile, and considering the fact that valuation aspect is arguable, we direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 50,000/- within a month from the receipt of this order, upon which we waive deposit of the balance of penalty and stay its recovery.4. The goods are stated to be still in the Customs. Therefore the question of payment of redemption fine does not arise.5. Having regard to the amount of penalt...

Fine Chemicals (Division of Super Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT131Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application by Fine Chemicals is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 51.28 lakhs, and penalty of equal amount on it, and the application by S.J. Sanghvi, its director, is for waiver of deposit of penalty under Rule 209A of Rs 5.00 lakhs imposed on him.2. Duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 6/94 in respect of the roxithromycin manufactured and cleared by it.3. The exemption has been denied on the ground that the product is not a bulk as defined in the notification because it did not, at the relevant time (1994-96) figure in the pharmacopoeia. The counsel for the applicant does not deny that it did not figure in the pharmacopoeia but contents that the extended period of limitation contained in the notification will not be available. He says that the classification list for the product has been approved. That list did not indicate that it figure in any pharmacopoe...

Grasim Industries Ltd. and A.S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal of M/s Grasim Industries is permitted to be retained here for the reason that its head office is in Mumbai. Therefore, the connected appeal of A.S. Kothari, Vice President of the company also permitted to be retained here.2. Application by Grasim Industries is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 12.47 crores, and a penalty of Rs 12.57 crores. Application by Kothari is for waiver penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh.3. The applicant was engaged in the manufacture of various commodities at Nagda. It decided to set up, in 1993, a new plant for manufacture of caustic soda from sodium chloride. In the process, hydrochloric acid emerges as a by product. This required setting up for four plants, for the manufacture, of salt handling plant, secondary brine plant, electrolyser plant and chlorine plant. Applicants intimated the jurisdictional Superintendent vide its letter dated 21.1.1994 of its intention to set up these plants and by letter of 9.6.1994 requested for a new personal ledger account....

Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom65; 2002(2)BomCR300; 2002(2)MhLj305

A.P. Shah, J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been challenged in these writ petitions. This question which is common to all the writ petitions is the only question which arises for consideration and these writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which is hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act, lays down :'Section 3(1) -- This Act shall not apply -- (a)....... (b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of Rupees one crore or more. Explanation. -- For the purpose of this clause the expression 'bank' means; -- (i) the State Bank of India constituted under...

Oswal Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC744

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 13,96,552/- and penalty of equal amount.2. The matter was earlier adjourned to verify the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed the order impugned in the appeal without hearing the applicant. We have today seen the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to this appeal. It appears from this file that on 19.8.99, the applicant was represented before him for another appeal by Mr. R. Nambirajan and Mr.K.K.Mehra, Deputy General Manager, Finance of the applicant. The Commissioner (Appeals) listed the appeal, in which he passed the impugned order, on 14.10.99. On 13.10.99, Mr. Mehra in the office copy of the hearing beneath has remarked that the case is already heard on 19.8.99 along with 186/99.3. If the employee of the company has found that the case has already been heard, it is difficult for us to accept that there was no opportunity of hearing. It was open to Mr. Mehra...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT429Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, the appellant before us, placed an order for two horizontal boring and milling machines. The supplier shipped the goods in 28 cases. Prior to their arrival, the appellant filed the bill of entry for the goods, had them assessed to duty, and paid the duty.2. One of the 28 cases did not arrive in Bombay. On such short shipment being discovered, the appellant filed a claim for refund of Rs. 1,92,500/- payable on the short-shipped goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs found that the claim which was received on 25-12-1983 was filed beyond six months from the date of payment of duty on 27-4-1983 and dismissed it as barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Act.On appeal from this order the Collector (Appeals), relying upon the decisions of this Tribunal holding that limitation of six months contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 27 would not apply to claims for refund of duty paid on goods which were short landed, allowed the appeal...

Consumers Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT521Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The common issue in both these appeals is whether duty could be demanded from an importer by seeking to revoke the benefit of exemption contained in Notification 203/92 which was extended to the goods on their importation. The show cause notice issued to each of the appellants alleges that Modvat credit had been taken of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods, thus contravening the condition contained in clause v(a) to Notification 203/92. The notices invoked the extended period contained in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act on the ground that the exporter had made a wrong declaration on the shipping bill that Modvat credit has been availed of. The counsel for Gaurisons says that no show cause notice was received by it and it is only on passing of the order that it came to know of the existence of the proceedings.Counsel for the Consumers Plastics Pvt. Ltd. submits that the reply that it filed to the notice was not considered. Ea...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT109Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of duty of Rs. 67, 90,646/-.2. The appellants manufacture excisable products utilising the Modvat credit facility both under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The common allegation was that certain goods imported under the project import regulations were covered under Rule 57A instead of under Rule 57Q. It was also alleged that the capital goods were not installed in the factory but were cleared on being worked upon to their customers. After hearing the assessees, the Dy. Commissioner passed single order confirming the duty as above, after permitting utilisation of credit of Rs. 4,54,60,347/-. In this order the Dy. Commissioner had mentioned that the assessees were heard on 5-5-2000 at 3.30 PM. In making the order, he placed reliance on a verification report filed by the Range Officer on 8-6-2000. In this report apparently the Range Officer stated that ...

Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT415Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both the sides on the stay application, we find that the issue stands decided. Hence, we take up the case for final disposal on granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,18,427/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the process of crushing, grinding and sieving of Soap Stone amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In holding so he relied upon the following judgments :CCE, Jaipur v. Oriental Products (P) Ltd. [1987 (28) E.L.T. 147 (T)];Associated Soapstone Distributing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, IndoreOriental Talc. Products Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. CCE, Jaipur [1984 (18) E.L.T. 657 (Tri.)]. He also refers to note 2 of Chapter 25 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Chartered Accountant for the appellants shows us the Tribunal judgment in the case of Wolkem India Limited v. CCE, Jaipur [1997 (92) E.L.T. 219 (Tri.)] in which it was held that such activity did not amount to manufacture. The appea...

Digambar Vanji Mali Vs. Kisan Khandu Chaudhar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR651; (2001)4BOMLR938; 2001(4)MhLj358

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the District Judge, Dhule dated 27th June, 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 344 of 1989. Both the parties consent to proceed with the hearing of this petition before the Bombay Bench, though it pertains to Dhule District.2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises situated within the Municipal limits of Deopur Lane No. 10 of Dhule admeasuring about 15'x 10' consisting of one room on monthly rent of Rs. 30/- and other taxes. The respondent-landlord issued demand notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent for a period between October, 1982 till the demand notice dated 28.8.1983. According to the respondent, since the petitioner did not offer the amount demanded in the said notice within the specified time of one month, the respondent instituted a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of default within the meaning of secti...