Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Balaji Son of Bhikaji Kapale and anr. Vs. Punjaji Son of Balaji Tayade ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR773; 2002(1)BomCR155

A.B. Naik, J.1. Rule. Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. A short, but important question is raised in this petition filed by the petitioners is 'Whether the Asstt. Charity Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside ex-parte order passed by him in the enquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act?' 3. In order to appreciate the above said question, it is necessary to refer the facts which emerge from the record. The Trust, by name 'Jijamata Shikshan Sanstha, Sindhkhedraja, having No. PTR F-38(BLD) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trust') is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the Rules & Regulations of the Trust, the Trust is managed by the Managing Committee, and the members of the Managing Committee are to be elected by the members of the Trust as per the provisions of Rules and Regulations. It is revealed from record that there are two gr...

Ronak Dyeing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Ronak Dyeing Ltd, appellant before us, was served a shown cause notice proposing short payment of duty and consequent payment of interest and liability to penalty. The manufacturer filed an appeal from this order to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was received at the Commissioner's office five months and seven days after the expiry of three months provided for filing the appeal under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the law did not confer upon him to condone the delay of five months in filing this appeal. The proviso under sub-section (1) of section 35 only permitted him to condone delay not exceeding three months. He therefore dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. This appeal is against the order.2. The counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal before the Tribunal being in time, it is required to take up, consider and dispose of on merits the appeal notwithstanding that it is against an order dismissing on limi...

Spaco Carburettors (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT755Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of carburettors. It received a consignment of such carburettors from a person from whom they have been supplied for removal of defects in them. It carried out reconditioning of the carburettors and returned them without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of Rule 173H. The department objected to the applicability of this rule on two counts. The first was that the goods were not accompanied on their return to the appellant, by the duplicate copy of the invoice under which the appellant illicitly cleared them. The second was that the goods were retained in the factory for more than six months after they were received. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Assistant Commissioner against the appellant in both these regards.2. Sub rule (1) of Rule 173H required the goods to be received for reconditioning accompanied by duty paying document.3. There can be no serious dispute by the departmental repres...

Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing a penalty under Rule 173Q on the appellant.2. The Commissioner found that the appellant was related to Inventa Electronics Pvt Ltd, the manufacturer of excisable goods, and has held the assessable value of duty the price at which the appellant sold those goods and he has consequently imposed a penalty on the manufacturer and the appellant.3. The appeal filed by Inventa Electronics Pvt Ltd has already been dismissed for default.4. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that even assuming the appellant to be a related person, penalty is not imposable on it under Rule 173Q. That rule does not apply to anyone other than a manufacturer, producer of excisable goods or a warehouse keeper. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in Kalsi Tyres vs CCE 1986 (26) ELT 631 in support. The ratio of this decision is that penalty cannot be imposed on a dealer of goods under Rule 173Q.5. The departmental representative is not ab...

Kurlon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for restoration of the order of the Tribunal passed on 25.2.1999 dismissing the appeal on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal found that it has not been shown that any application has been made for waiver of deposit of the penalty amount, which the applicant has not deposited.2. The counsel for the applicant accepts to day that the amount in question has still not been paid. She also accepts that no stay application has been filed. She contended strongly for some time that the amount could not be paid on account of financial hardship, but when the Tribunal indicated what its decision are going to be, that it would pay the amount. This itself shows insincerity of the claim of financial hardship. We therefore find no cause for restoring the appeal and dismiss the application....

Naresh Shah and Mahesh Ganatra Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard the advocate for the applicant Naresh Shah. Applicant Mahesh Ganatra is absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. Applications are for waiver deposit of penalty imposed on Naresh Shah of Rs 30.00 lakh (applicant 112), and Rs 50.00 lakh (application 114) imposed on him under Section 112 of the Act, and by Mahesh Ganatra of Rs 10.00 lakhs (application 604) and Rs 20.00 lakh (application 600) again under Section 112 of the Act.3. Penalties have been imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that these two persons who were stated to be broker in import licences, aided Chandra Gems and Shirp International in obtaining the advance licences from the licensing authority by misrepresenting facts and submitting concocted evidence before that authority.4. There is allegation in the notice, or in the finding that the persons did anything in relation to the goods which were imported, by making use of these licences. We are therefore of the view that, whatever the evidence that t...

Prithvi Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT142Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, extending by a period of one month the time within which the show cause notice under Section 110 of the Act was to be issued to the appellant in respect of the goods received by it.2. We have not gone into the question as to whether this order is an interim order and therefore appealable. Even if it is assumed that this is so, we fail to see how the appellant would be aggrieved by this order. The representative of the appellant says that the appeal is limited to imposition of penalty. It is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in AC vs Charandas Malhotra 1983 (14) ELT 77 that the period prescribed in sub section (2) of Section 110 of the Act for issue of notice affects only seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice issued under Section 124 of the Act. That goods can be confiscated notwithstanding that the notice was not issued within the period prescribed in section 110 is made clear in the ju...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Okasa Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT458Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the respondent was entitled to modvat credit on the invoice of which it received from the dealer. The Commissioner did not accept the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the invoices were not acceptable for the reason that they did not contain details of vehicle number and time of removal of goods.2. The Tribunal in its order in appeal E/549/96 & E/575/96 filed by the Commissioner against the same appellant, concluded that the failure to show the vehicle number would not by itself invalidate the invoices. It also noted the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Jenny Plywood Industries Ltd vs. CCE 1997 (96) ELT 606 that absence of the time of removal in the invoice is a remediable defect. The Departmental Representative says that invoice 009-dated 25.8.1994 does not show the duty paid by the manufacturer in the appropriate column.3. The answer of the representative of the respondent is that the respo...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Calcutta Chemical Agencies,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Notices issued on 28.3.2001, 21.4.2001, and 6.6.2001 asked the Commissioner to produce legible copies of order-in-order, order-in-appeal and have the appeal properly verified (the latter two notices were necessitated on account of adjournments). The Commissioner has still not complied with in full. Although he has complied with regard to verification and legible copies of the Order-in-Appeal, he has still not submitted legible copies of the Order-in-Original. The departmental representative has no explanation to offer.2. In the light of this continued obduracy on the Commissioner's part, we do not see that any purpose would be served in adjourning the matter again and therefore dismiss the appeal under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....

Griffon Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Maharashtra Shramik Sena, M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj381

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. By an award of the Labour Court dated 15th December 1995 upon a reference made by the appropriate Government to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry initiated by the employer in the present case stood vitiated on the ground that the chargesheet was vague. The employer was thereupon granted an opportunity to lead evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct. After the parties adduced evidence-the employer in support of the charge of misconduct and the Union in defence of the workmen, the Industrial Court by its award dated 29th November, 1996 has come to the conclusion that the employer had not proved the charge of misconduct against the chargesheeted workmen. Accordingly, the Labour Court has directed the employer to pay back wages to the workmen from the date of termination until the date on which they were appointed afresh by the employer. Though the workmen ha...