Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Ksb Pumps Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT401Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification in the Central excise tariff of the baseplates of the electrical pumps for liquids that the appellant manufactures. Following issue of notice to the appellant, the Assistant Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)) has held that these baseplates are to be classified, not as parts of pumps under heading 8413.00, but as parts of machines not having electrical connections and not elsewhere specified in Chapter 84, under heading 8485.90.2. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the baseplates are specifically designed and manufactured to form part of each kind of pump that the appellant manufactured. Each baseplate is therefore designed for a particular pump to be mounted on it and cannot be used for mounting on any other pump. Each plate is designed and manufactured without taking into consideration the extent of vibration that it has to protect against. The baseplates are ...

M/S Goa Paints Allied Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of Tribunal's order No. C-II/2212-2224/2000 WZB dt. 11.8.2000 was argued by Shri M.P. Baxi Shri M.H. Shaikh appeared for revenue.2. In paragraph available to the appellants and had also quantified the amoutn, which was not due. the claim in the application is that because of an inadvertent error, the correct figure was not represented. The Ld. DR has verified the figures and finds the claim to be correct.In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, for the figure Rs. 10,02,156.56, the figure Rs. 10,72,065,55 shall be read; and for the figure Rs. 28,48,318.30; the figure Rs. 27,78,409.31 shall be read....

Tata Press Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1420Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification for assessment to custom duty of the publications, which are commonly referred to as "Yellow Pages" imported by the appellant. The appellant imported these copies from their printer at Singapore for commercial distribution in this county. In the bill of entry filed for their clearance, the appellant classified the goods under heading 4901.10 of the tariff and claimed the exemption from duty contained in Entry 10 of the Table to notification 25/95.2. The Custom House took the view that the "Yellow Pages" was not a book classifiable under heading 4901 but a list of paid advertisements classifiable under heading 4911.010, and that therefore the benefit would not be available. It appears that the department took the view that clause (d) of section 111 of the Act would also apply, although whether this was communicated to the importer is debatable, apparently having waived issue of written notice, was heard by the Commi...

Nikko Pneumatics Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT676Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 17.34 lakhs approx and a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding that solenoid valves manufactured by the applicant were not entitled to the benefit of notification.75/87. After denying the exemption, the Additional Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has held that the article would be classifiable under heading 8418.10 of the tariff.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the goods would be classifiable under sub heading 80 of heading 8418.00 and therefore the benefit of notification 1/93 will be available is prima facie unacceptable. Sub heading 10 is for solenoid valves for refrigerating and air conditioning appliances and machinery. The counsel for the applicant does not dispute that the valves in question were supplied exclusively to Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd and that that company in conju...

M/S G.R. Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT413Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants in this case had availed of input stage credit of duty paid on certain pipes. The pipes were removed without reversing the credit. Some pipes were seized and also the truck carrying the pipes. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty on the pipes so removed and also imposed penalties. The seized pipes in the meantime had been got released by the applicants in terms of a B-11 Bond. The truck was also similarly released in terms of a bond. The Additional Commissioner confiscated the pipes and the truck and directed that the security given along with the bond be encashed. This order was upheld in appeal. The present applicant then filed an appeal and application for waiver of predeposit of the duty and penalty. Prayer was also made for restraining the authorities from encashing bank guarantee. The Tribunal observed that the entire duty had been deposited by the assessee as also about 25% of the penalty. The Tribunal therefore waived the deposit of the remaining am...

Reliance Industries Ltd., H.R. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty by Reliance Industries Ltd, of Rs. 8.08 crores approx and a penalty under Rule 173Q of Rs. 8.00 crores. The other two applications are for waiver of deposit of penalties under Rule 209A of Rs. 40.00 lakhs on H.R. Shah and of Rs. 20.00 lakhs on M.B. Patel, employees.3. The applicant manufactures, in the yarn division of its factory at Naroda, viscose yarn and wollen blended yarn. No part of such yarn is sold and all of it is entirely consumed in the manufacture in the same factory of fabrics. The value, for the purpose of assessment therefore had to be determined in terms of the Valuation Rules. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that, for the period from April 1994 to August 1996, the applicant under declared the value by not including for 1994-95 the element of profit, and by reducing in the other years, the amount of profit, bonus and gratuity and interest on capital goods. There i...

M/S Bal Mahavir Tex Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No. C-11/1140-42/WZB/2001 dt. 24.4.2001 M/s. Bal Mahavir Tex Pvt. Ltd. were directed to deposit 50% of the duty confirmed, vide the impugned order. The other two appellants namely Omprakash Gandhi and Rameshwarlal Lahoti were directed to deposit Rs. 40,000/- each as precondition of hearing of their appeals. Compliance was to be reported in 2^nd week of July 2001. Due notice has been sent for appellants.Today the appellants are not present nor represented the period prescribed in the aforesaid order (sic) as elapsed. We therefore dismiss these three appeals in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

S.N. Kedare Vs. Ceat Tyres of India Ltd., Mumbai and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR922]; 2002(2)MhLj359

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The petition is directed against an award of the Industrial Tribunal rendered on 18th October, 1996 in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner was employed on 2nd July, 1966 as a Truck Tyre Builder and was receiving a salary of Rs. 2,100/- per month in Grade I on the date on which the accident, which forms the bone of contention in these proceedings, took place. Between 2nd February, 1932 and 9th May, 1982, the petitioner was on leave without wages. During this period, he had been treated medically for arthritis and for rheumatic pain of the body joints. On 11th May, 1982, the petitioner was deployed in the night shift commencing from 10.30 p.m. A Notice of Accident which came to be prepared and filed by the employer on 12th May, 1982 sets out that in the early hours of 12th May, 1982 at 3.45 a.m., the petitioner while operating a 'turn down' tool sustained a fall causing him pain in the back and in the l...

Ajay Shankar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR432; 2002(1)BomCR177

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. 1. Heard Mr. Mehta for the petitioners. Mr. Panjwani appears for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sawant, Government Pleader, appears for respondents No. 3 and 4.2. The petitioners herein are running three different Circus Companies known as Jumbo Circus, Great Royal Circus and Rambo Circus respectively. Amongst other animals they are having in their custody lions, panthers, tigers and bears. In the present petition, they are challenging the letter dated 6th June, 2000 issued by the Director (Law) & Member Secretary, Government of India. Respondent No. 2 herein. The letter is addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and it is concerning the cancellation of certificate of ownership issued in regard to five categories of animals which are lion, tiger, panther, bear and monkey. These certificates of ownership are issued by the Chief Wildlife Warden under section 42 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The letter informs the Chief Conservator of Fo...

Mohamad M. Alam Vs. Western India Automobile Association and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR182; [2001(0)FLR0]; [2001(91)FLR326]; (2002)00LLJ0Bom; (2002)IVLLJ933Bom; 2002(1)MhLj40

1. The petitioner had filed a complaint (Complaint U.L.P. No. 501 of 1990) in which it was alleged that the First Respondent was guilty of an unfair labour practices under items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the MRTU and PULP Act'). The petitioner was engaged as a motor training instructor by the First Respondent with effect from 15th February, 1988 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,200/-. The grievance of the petitioner was that he had been denied the benefit of permanency as well as other benefits which were being enjoyed by the permanent workmen. The grievance of the Petitioner was also that the existing settlement extended benefits to all employees other than the motor training instructors. The complaint filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by an order dated 17th November, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay and the following operative directions were issued by the Industrial ...