Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Royal Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal has been filed against the imposition of penalty on the appellant who is the purchaser of man made fabrics processed by M/s. SGS Synthetics on whom the duty demand has been confirmed, in addition to the imposition of a penalty.2. The submission of the appellant that penalty is not sustainable in view of the fact that there are no penal provisions in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957 under which the duty has been confirmed, requires to be accepted in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Pioneer Silk Mills reported in 1995(80ELT 507) which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Syntex Processors.3. Therefore, we set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant herein and allow the appeal....

Pushpaman Forgings Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture forged products of steel falling under chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They have been availing credit of duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final forged products of steel specified under notification 5/94 CE (NT) dated 1.3.94. They availed of the credit of paid on such inputs for payment of excise duty on the final products under 57F of the Rules. Normally, the appellants manufactured the final products on the basis of the orders placed by its customers who are industrial customers, and manufactured by them hence the products were tailer-made. Amongst its customers, the appellants have as their customer the Defence Department of the Government of India. Whenever the appellant supplies the goods to the Defence Department, for such manufactured goods they do not pay any duty. This is because of notification 4/97 dated 1.3.1997, which fixes the duty at nil rate subject to the following procedure...

Asian Paints (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT303Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Appellant before us is a well-known manufacturer of paints, varnishes, thinners etc. falling under Chapters 32 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the price declaration filed from time to time the appellant has claimed deductions of cash discount at 5% whereas in actual point of fact cash discount was not passed on to all its customers. This has resulted in issue of three show cause notices dated 31.12.97, 4.9.98 and 3.4.98 seeking to deny the amount of Rs. 11,12,625/- on the following grounds. The applicant had four manufacturing units whereas these goods were despatched to different depots and branches. Goods were sold at all India dealer price which are uniformly applicable to all the dealers. Cash discount of 5% was allowed when payment was made immediately. The assessing authority in the impugned order has found in the Order in Original that finalising the provisional assessment for the period from July -- August 1996, the cash discount was considered as inadmiss...

Shareline Hotels P. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These six applications relate to six appeals all filed against the single order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai now impugned before us. These applications are disposed of vide this common order.2. M/s. Interscape are the manufactures and suppliers of furniture.They also undertake construction of partition etc. and installation of furnitures in sites on job work basis. Shri Vinod Naik is the proprietor of M/s. Interscape. Arvind Panchal & Bros are manufacturing similar articles. Shri Arvind Panchal is the proprietor thereof. The entire work involved in the present proceedings was done for and on behalf of M/s. Shoreline Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Shri M.A. Bhawani is the Director of M/s. Shoreline Hotels P.Ltd. On the same set of facts, it appears that another show cause notice had been issued to M/s. Hotel Marine Plazza( a unit owned by M/s. Shoreline Hotels Pvt.Ltd.) as well as to Shri M.A. Bharwani seeking recovery of duty of Rs. 50,12,786 and also alleging levy of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Swastik Engineering Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Swastik Engineering Works, the respondent to this appeal was engaged in the manufacture of domestic electrical flour mills. It sold its entire production to Swastik Sales Corporation and Pooja Sales Corporation. It alleged that these two firms were related to the manufacturer by reason of the following facts. The directors of these two firms were either directors of the Swastik Engineering Works or close relatives of these directors. These two buyers were prohibited from dealing with domestic flour mills manufactured by anyone else.Each of them had to deposit Rs. 1.25 lakhs with the manufacturer. This sum was inordinate representing two months working capacity of the manufacturer. The price at which these two firms could sell these products was determined by the manufacturer. They described in the correspondence of the manufacturer as agents. The notice therefore proposed to base the value for assessment of these goods, by application of the provisions of the 3rd clause of the prov...

Suman Art Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Both the Revenue and the assessee have filed applications for early hearing of the above appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue's application is on the ground that stakes are high. The assessee's application is on the ground that subsequent to the order of the lower Appellate Authority in favour of the assessee, the department has issued show cause notices to protect its interest. We are not satisfied that any ground is made out for early hearing of the appeals since the amount is just over Rs. 15.5 lakhs. We are also not satisfied the issue of show cause notices to the assessee will in any way affect the assessee so as to warrant early hearing. We, therefore, dismiss these applications....

Rajendra M. Chendekar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Compliance with the Tribunal's order asking deposit by the applicant of Rs. 10,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was to be shown today.Counsel for the applicant refers to the application for modification of that order which has been filed. With the consent of the departmental representative this application is taken up today.2. The penalty has been imposed on the ground that the applicant, a postal employee connived in smuggling of goods imported through the post. The Tribunal had earlier considered the contention that the applicant was under suspension. It is now contended that it has been dismissed by order dated 13.6.01. He has further no source of income.3. Taking these facts into account, we accept the offer of the applicant to deposit Rs. 5000 within 15 days and modify our earlier order accordingly....

Gujarat State Fertiliser and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The amount represents a refund which was sanctioned to the applicant following an order passed in 1997 of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the refund is not to be regulated by applying the principles of unjust enrichment under Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. The contention that this order has acquired finality and therefore the order of the Asst. Commissioner which may implement this order cannot be challenged by filing an appeal before us, appears to us to have considerable force. Doubtless the Commissioner (appeals) had applied the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides v.UOI 1992 (57) ELT 201 and this decision is no longer good law having been reversed by the Supreme Court. However, it would appear prima facie that, no appeal having been filed against that order, it has become final as between parties and the subsequent reversal of the Supreme Court. However, it would appear prima facie that, no appeal having been filed against that order, it ha...

Bhimrao Chandru Patil and ors. Vs. Balkrishna Dattatraya Joshi and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR731; (2002)1BOMLR500; 2002(1)MhLj125

1. This petition is by a Tenant, directed against the order dated 26-2-1982 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Walva Division, Dist: Sangli directing issuance of certificate in favour of landlords under Section 88 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Act 'for short') in form No. XIII prescribed under Rule 62(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 ('Rules' for short) framed under the Act.THE FACTS The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under:--2. One Vithoba Deosthan is a registered public Trust registered under B.P.T. Act, 1950. The respondent No. 1 claiming to be vahiwatdar/trustee of the said trust, on 22-4-1974, had applied for grant of exemption certificate under Section 88-B of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The said application was rejected by the then Assistant Collector, Walva Division, Sangli vide its order dated 27-3-1976 holding that no evidence was tendered by the applicant to prove that the income e...

Vinod Vishnu Wani and ors. Vs. Permanent Magnets Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR137; 2002(3)BomCR334; [2002(94)FLR66]; (2002)IILLJ1123Bom

V.K. Barde, J. 1. In all these Letters Patent Appeals, a common point has arisen and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Management) filed five writ petitions in this Court, being Writ Petition Nos. 2866 of 2001, 2869 of 2001, and 2867 of 2001, 2870of 2001 and 2868 of 2001. These writ petitions were heard by a learned single Judge of this Court together and are disposed of by a common judgment and order passed on July 23,2001. 3. The brief facts leading to these litigations are that the five respondents in the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as the employees') were in service of the appellants-management and their services were terminated. The employees thereafter filed proceedings before the Labour Court, Jalgaon, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU & PULP Act), contending that unfa...