Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

M/S Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By our order dated 14.2.2000 we had dismissed the COD application 812-R/99-Mum. The Hon'ble High Court in Special Civil Application No.8696 of 2000 by its order dated 4.9.2000 directed the Tribunal to examine the matter on merits. Hence, the appeal is restored to its original number.2. Prayer is made on behalf of the appellant that the matter may be taken up the Tribunal out of turn. The amount involved in this appeal is Rs.12 lakhs and odd. We have evolved a criteria that in the case where the amount involved is above Rs. One crore or where the matter is of repetitive nature, we normally grant out of turn hearing. This case does not fall within that category. In view of the large pendency of the matter in the West Regional Bench, we cannot grant the prayer now.Hence, the application for early hearing stands dismissed....

M/S Arbian Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself can be taken up for disposal after waiving the deposit.2. The appellant before us has been granted Advance Licence. The licencee transferred the licence in favour of M/s. Rajesh Enterprises.Show cause notice was issued alleging that the importer had taken input stage modvat credit at the time of manufacture of the goods which were ultimately exported.3. It is represented before us that the final product is not at all excisable. It is stated by the appellant that they have not received the show cause notice. The fact that the exported goods are excisable or not needs verification. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication after following the principles of natural justice, (sic) copy of the show cause notice at the address given below, give time to the appellant to file its reply and given personal hearing to the appellant before passing th...

M/S Abhishek Steel P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For the last 5 to 6 times none has appeared for the applicants. In this case, in the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the duty demand of about Rs.25 lakhs on the assessee and imposed penalty on Shri Rakesh S. Sharma and others under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. We have gone through the impugned order and the appeals. We are prima-facie of the view that the applicant does not have a strong prima-facie case. Hence, we direct the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs) within two months on receipt of the order. As far as the applicant Shri Rakesh S.Sharma is concerned, as stated above, he does not have a strong prima-facie case. Hence, instead of payment of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on him we direct him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhs) within eight weeks on receipt of this order. On payment/being made, there will be waiver of the reminder of the sums due under the impugned order and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency ...

icpa Health Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1108Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals involve the same issue and that is the classification of products known as "Thermoseal and "RA Thermoseal".These two appeals are, therefore, being taken up together for disposal vide this single order. The appellants seek classification under Heading 3003 whereas the Revenue sought classification under Heading 3306. For the sake of appreciation the respective Headings are reproduced below:- 3003.10.--Patent or propriety medicaments, other than those medicaments which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha Homoeopathic or Bio-chemic, 3003.20--Medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathic or Bio-chemic systems - Medicaments, including those used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, homoeopathic or Bio-chemic systems: 3003-31 -- Manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 194...

Shri Vinay Kumar Guru Dayal and Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this matter, the question involved is whether assembling of parts of machine will amount to manufacture or not. Previously, in this case Appeal No. E/3519/92 was filed and on deciding the stay application, the Tribunal had directed the applicant to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs. Two lakhs within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt that order. The applicant complied with the stay order and the Tribunal disposed of the matter by remanding the same to the Adjudicating Authority for denovo consideration. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has again held against the assessee. The present application has been filed for waiver of the duty and penalty.2. We have considered the submissions and following the earlier order of the Tribunal, we direct the assessee to furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. Two lakhs within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On furnishing the Bank Guarantee within the stipulated time mentioned above, there shall be st...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]254ITR572(Bom)

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated October 28,1999, the Department has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On July 2, 2001, the following order was passed by us.'Appeal stands allowed partly for reasons to follow subsequently. No costs.'2. Reasons :3. Since several questions have been referred to us vide this appeal, for the sake of convenience, the judgment is given in the form of answers to the questions referred to us in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Suffice it to state that the respondent is a co-operative society. It is a sugar Karkhana. The appeal concerns the assessment year 1987-88. Answers to the questions :Question No. 1 : Disallowance of Shubhechha greetings.Answer : The department disallowed the aforestated expense on the ground that it cannot be said to have been incurred towards advertisement expense. In view of our judgment in Income-tax Appeal No. 677 of 2000, dated June 18, 200...

SadruddIn Meherali Suraji Vs. Ramzanali Yakubali Lakdawala

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom437; 2001(4)BomCR658; (2001)3BOMLR547

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.Though appearances of two Advocates have been filed on behalf of the petitioner - none of them are present when the matter is called out, whereas petitioner appears in person and makes request for adjournment of the matter on the ground that his advocates have instructed him to take adjournment of two weeks. This request is made inspite of the conditional order passed in this case on 29.6.2001. It is distressing that though two advocates have entered appearance none of them have chosen to appear in Court and instead have asked their client to make request for an adjournment. This attitude of the counsel needs to be deprecated. Every counsel, who has filed appearance on record has duty towards the Court. Even on the last occasion neither of them appeared when the matter was called out resultantly forcing this Court to take unpleasant action of passing a conditional order. It is in the hands of the members of the legal profession to improve the quality of service they ...

Shri Janu Laxman Kumbhar Vs. Shri Pandurang Laxman Kumbhar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR212; (2001)3BOMLR678; 2001(4)MhLj159

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 10.1.1996 passed by the Civil Judge. J. D., Ajara below Ex. 71 in Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 1988.2. By the above said application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner (defendant) prayed for permission to amend written statement by inserting additional new paras 4a and 4b in the original written statement. This prayer has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order mainly on the ground that this would result in permitting the petitioner-defendant to withdraw admissions given by him in the written statement. It is not necessary to advert to all the other details relating to the rival stands taken by the parties inter se. Suffice it to say that in the written statement the petitioner took specific stand that the suit property was subject matter of partition effected by metes and bounds between the brothers of the petitioner an...

Wimco Limited Vs. Wimco Employees Union and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR441; 2001(4)BomCR655; (2002)4BOMLR656; [2002(92)FLR426]; (2002)IILLJ888Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the First Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for final hearing.2. The Industrial Court has granted an interim stay of an order of transfer despite an express finding in the impugned order dated 3rd May. 2001 that no mala fides have been established as regards the transfer of the workman concerned from the Head Office at Mumbai to the factory at Ambernath. The workman. Mr. Shailesh Mahyavanshi, was appointed on 5th August, 1987 as Hamal. The letter of appointment expressly states that his services are liable to be transferred to any of the units or establishments of the employer in India, in which case the service conditions will be governed by the rules and regulations of that unit or establishment. An order of transfer has been issued on 12th March, 2001 by which the workman was asked to report at the factory situated at Ambernath. The Industrial Court has taken due note of the fact that the service...

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, Mumbai Vs. U.S.V. Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR659; [2002(92)FLR438]; (2002)IVLLJ963Bom; 2002(1)MhLj168

1. By an award dated 1st April, 1997 the Labour Court has answered the reference to adjudication made to the Court in the negative, upholding in the process the dismissal from service of four workmen. A chargesheet was issued to four workmen, namely, Shri B. G. Shirke, Shri V. V. Mhatre, Smt. P. D. Ghogle and Smt. S. P. Chavan. The allegations in the chargesheet were thus :--'You have been employed in the Capsule Department as worker. On 15-2-1984, you were in General Shift. At about 9.40 a.m. you and your colleagues left the work place leaving the production unattended and when asked by the Supervisors to go to the Department, you flatly refused to do. You along with your colleagues viz. M/s P. V. Mahddalkar, V. V. Mhatre, B. A. Bavkar, Mrs. S. P. Chavan and Mrs. P. D. Ghogle, forced the supervisors viz. M/s A. V. Kutumbe and H. G. Shirwaikar under threat to accompany you to the Administrative Wing to see the Plant Manager. You entered the Plant Manager's cabin along with your said co...