Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

M/S India United Mills No. 1 Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The representative of the appellant says that the clearance of the Committee of Secretaries still has not been issued and has no information about the present status of the proceedings.2. In these circumstances we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance, giving the appellant liberty to revive if and when such clearance is received....

Walia Engg. Associates P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex., Ahmedabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of the duty demanded in the order-in-original of Rs. 1,09,575/-, the applicant has already deposited Rs. 55,000/- in compliance with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the stay application filed in the appeal before him.2. We therefore do not consider that any further deposit is called for, waive deposit of the remaining amount and stay its recovery....

Nucleaus Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal of the company contains an application for condonation of delay of about 20 months. The impugned order was communicated to the applicant on 29/12/1998. The appeal has been filed on 29/11/2000.2. The reason for condoning the delay given in the application is that the Director had lost faith in the system and that therefore even when the appeal was kept ready he did not file it. He has given another technical ground, his interpretation of what should constitute manufacture. The law that mere assembly of peripherals constitutes manufacture of a computer system has already been laid down. In terms of Section 35 (B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the appeal must be filed within time. the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay where it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal by existence of a sufficient cause. Simpley put, if there were sufficient difficulties in the filing of the appeal during the time limit specified the Tribunal could con...

Khatau Makanji Spinning and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT790Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether duty can be imposed on the cotton yarn which was warped, beamed and reeled for the period commencing on 1-3-1994 ending with 22-3-1994.2. In these two cases appellant's three composite textile mills were manufacturing cotton yarn. Out of the cotton yarn manufactured they cap-tively utilised the same in the manufacture of fabrics by paying the duty at spindle stage. It undergoes various process like warping, winding, beaming and reeling which were exempted processes under Notification No. 46/86. This was amended by means of Notification No.30/94 dt. 1-3-1994. As a result of this duty was levied on warping, winding, beaming and reeling etc. The show cause notice has been issued demanding duty resulting in imposition of duty. The appellants have brought to our notice exemption issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by Notification No. 35/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 5-11-1996. In view of the above, we set aside the impugne...

Govind Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC727

2. In the impugned order the Commissioner has held that the benefit of Notification 203/92 is wrongly accorded to the appellant, for the reason that Modvat credit was taken in the manufacture of goods exported.3. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the export product, with regard to all the advance licences figuring in the adjudication order, is bicycle tyres, which were exempted from duty.There would therefore be no question of taking credit on the duty on the inputs used in the manufacture. He cites the Commissioner's orders (30 of 2000 dated 11.10.2000) dropping notice issued to the appellant on this ground.4. We are of the view that this aspect should be considered by the Commissioner. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Mr. Patil undertakes on behalf of the appellant that a reply to the show cause notice incorporating the submissions that have been made before us would be filed within a month from the receipt of this order.The Commi...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Gujarat Borosil Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the respondent did not use straw and bricks and other material that she has specified i n packing the goods that it sold to buyers in the market at the factory gate, and therefore held that the cost of such packing is not includable in the assessable value of the goods.2. The appeal relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v.MRF 1995 (77) ELT 432. In that judgment the Supreme Court, citing its earlier judgment in Ponds (I) Ltd. 1989 (44) ELT 185 said that it is the cost of such packing in which the goods are generally sold in the wholesale market that is to be included. That packing, as we have seen, did not include the bricks and straw. We therefore find no reason to interfere....

Comm. of Customs (import), Vs. M/S Fisher Rosemont (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In view of the fact that the classification, both for assessment as well as for licensing purposes determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been accepted by the department for the same goods imported by the same respondent in 1997, as seen from the bills of entry produced before us, the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner is dismissed....

Shantilal Jethabai Khona Vs. Anandrai Shivlal Dave and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR346; 2002(2)MhLj339

F.I. Rebello, J.1. This Motion by defendant No. 3 seeks amongst others reliefs, a declaration that the lis pendens notice registered under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act with the Sub Registrar at Bombay, on 29th April 1999, be declared as null and void, illegal and ineffective and the same be set aside. The further prayer sought is that pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Court be pleased to forthwith deregister the notice of lis pendens dated 29th April, 1999. There are also some other prayers. The Motion is supported by the affidavit of Pratap C. Lodaya, partner of defendant No. 3. Defendant No, 3 is the purchaser of the property from defendant No. 1. In the affidavit it is averred as to why the reliefs as prayed for should be granted. The plaintiff has filed his reply dated 5th September, 2000. In the said affidavit it is averred that the defendant's motion is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has been replied to the averments...

Electropathy Medicos of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom22; 2002(1)ALLMR105; 2002(2)BomCR734; (2002)1BOMLR9; 2001(4)MhLj553

A.P. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner before us is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner-society claims that it has been established with a view to promoting and developing the so-called new branch of medical science called 'electropathy' which is distinct from other medical sciences like allopathy, Ayurved and Unani. The petitioner is conducting 3 years diploma course in Bachelor of Electrorpathy, Medicine and Surgery (B.E.M.S.) and one year diploma course in M.D.E.H. for decree-holder in Allopathy, Ayurved etc. The petitioner claims that it is a perpetual Institution to which several colleges/institutions imparting education and training inelectropathy system are affiliated.2. In effect and in substance what is sought in the petition is that the petitioner should be allowed to conduct the courses in the subject called Electro homeopathy/electropathy without any let or hindrance from the Government or any statutory au...

Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. Sandvik Asia Employees' Union and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR625]; (2002)ILLJ1043Bom

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Kiran Bapat, advocate waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Service of rule on respondent Nos. 2 and 4 is dispensed with. 3. The respondent No. 1 herein (for short 'the complainant') filed a complaint (ULP) No. 86 of 2001 before the Industrial Court, Pune under Section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'MRTU& PULP Act') praying therein that petitioner herein (for short 'the employer') be declared to have engaged in unfair labour practice by appointing Shri M.P. Gokhale as enquiry officer and the said enquiry officer be restrained from. conducting enquiry against respondent No. 2 Shri K.M. Bhalerao and respondent No. 3 Shri R.G. Solomon herein (for short 'the employees') and the entire proceedings of enquiry conducted by enquiry officer be, declared null and void. In the said complaint, an application for interim relief...