Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

KishIn Shewaram Loungani and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 28/03/1997 Air India Security Officers apprehended passenger, Pankaj Mansukhlal Jagda (Appellant No.2) bound for Dubai by Air India Flight No. AI-729 at Air India baggage screening machine at the Bombay Airport. He was handed over to the officers of the AIU along with his baggage. He was asked by the Customs officers whether he was carrying any foreign currency in his baggage or on his person to which he replied in the affirmative stating that he was carrying some foreign exchange in his black zipper suitcase, search of which resulted in recovery of five bundles of assorted foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 28,01,257.5, wrapped in black carbon paper.2. The currency was seized in the reasonable belief that it was attempted to be smuggled out of India. Statement of Pankaj Jagda was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which he stated that the currency had been given to him by one Kishin Shewaram Loungani (Appellant No.20), wh...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Sensotherm India (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondent herein are engaged in the manufacture of Thermowells, Instrument Cables, Control Cables and Process Control Equipment, etc., falling under Chapter 85 and 90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show cause notice dated 05/08/1993 was issued to them proposing recovery of duty on three grounds: (i) That they had cleared certain goods i.e., Thermowells without payment of duty of Rs. 9,706/-; (ii) Compensating Cables/Thermo Couple Cables had been wrongly classified by them under the CETA heading 90.32 as the same were correctly classifiable under heading 85.44 resulting in short levy of Rs. 6,94,753/-; and (iii) That the appellant had undervalued their goods involving duty demand of Rs. 1,56,491/-.2. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise who dropped all the charges raised in the notice. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner dropping the demand.3. At the outset the learned counsel for th...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT218Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The applicant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming a demand for duty of Rs. 67.16 lakhs approx, and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on it. The Tribunal heard and passed orders dated 22.3.1996, after considering various grounds that were raised, including financial hardship, on the ground that the applicant had incurred a loss of Rs. 22.00 lakhs for the year ending February, 1996. It ordered deposit by the applicant of Rs. 15.00 lakhs in cash, and also asked it to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 15.00 lakhs within three months. Deposit in instalments was also permitted.3. The applicant filed an application for modification of this order, which the Tribunal heard and disposed on 13 December, 1996. The ground, in the modification application, was of financial hardship. The Tribunal was unconvinced by this claim. It noted that financial hardship had already been considered when the order on the stay application was passed and furth...

Indian Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT841Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in these three appeals is a common one and hence the appeals are heard together and disposed off by a common order.2. Modvat credit of Rs. 5,87,63,806/- has been denied on Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) and Light Diesel Oil (LDO) on the ground that the appellant did not declare the final product, namely steam, in the manufacture of which the inputs were used. In addition a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed upon the appellants.3. It is the contention of the Shri Willingdon, learned counsel that although in the declaration dated 28/03/1994 final product steam had not been shown but instead final product was shown as IOP Plant (Integrated Offsite Project Plant), the appellant had already declared that the final product in which LSHS and LDO were to be used was steam, in their declaration dated 27/03/1986. He also submits that such declaration has been acknowledged by the department and therefore there is no ground for denial of credit.4. Learned DR, Shri M.H. ...

Prashant Krishna Salvi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ37CAT

1. The Applicant in this case, has come up to the Tribunal seeking the relief, in substance, through a direction to respondents that they are required to fill up the posts of Lower Division Clerks in the Department of Atomic Energy (D.A.E for short), and its constituent units from within the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges only. On this principle, he wants it to be held by the Tribunal that written examination, typing tests, etc. for the post of L.D.Cs. originally scheduled in January, 1994, be reconducted.Consequential reliefs are sought, as detailed in para 8 of the O.A.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Applicant who was registered in the Employment Exchange at Mumbai, was asked to appear at a selection process for the post of L.D.C. by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (B.A.R.C.) in Mumbai. Dates of 15th to 17th January, 1994 for written examination, typing test, etc. were indicated.However, a few days before these dates, he received a circul...

i.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. Asha Latex and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]114CompCas581(Bom); [2004]50SCL241(Bom)

R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner-company has prayed for an order of winding up of the respondent-company under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging failure on the part of the respondent-company to pay its debt to the tune of Rs. 12,62,641 which comprises the amount of instalments due under the hire-purchase agreement and overdue compensation at the rate of 31 per cent per month as on November 6, 2000. It has also prayed for a direction to pay compensation at the same rate from November 7, 2000, till payment.2. From the averments in the petition it appears that both the parties had entered into a hire-purchase agreement on October 23, 1997, whereunder certain equipment were given on hire basis to the respondent-company which was required to discharge the liability in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 28,150 commencing from February 23, 1998. The petitioners have averred that there was default on the part of the respondent-company in making payment of the very firs...

Bank of India Vs. Bank of India Workers' Organisation and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR172; (2002)IILLJ382Bom

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the advocate for the petitioner and the respondent.2. The order that is challenged in this petition is order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated December 11, 1990. The order is very short, but if permitted to continue, will have very disastrous consequences and therefore, it is reproduced as below:'The appearance of the workmen involved in the present Reference, and the appearance of the Office Bearers of the Union for the purpose of the present Reference before this Tribunal be treated by the Bank Management as their duty leave, and they be paid their wages for all the days they have appeared before this Tribunal for the said purpose.'This order came to be passed on an application of the respondent dated November 9, 1990. When such application was filed before the Tribunal, it was opposed by the petitioner i.e. the Bank by filing a written reply, wherein instances where such prayers were rejected, were quoted. Authorities were also relied upo...

Amarjeet S. Vidhyarthi Vs. Sushiladevi K. Pillani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR694

J.A. Patil, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of contract and possession of the property agreed to be sold. In the alternative, it is a suit for damages. The property in respect of which these reliefs are claimed is Flat No. 3 in building No. 5 of the Colaba Co-operative Housing Society, situate on Sohrab Bharucha Road, Colaba Mumbai. It's carpet area is 1400 square feet. The defendant is the owner of the suit flat.2. It is the plaintiff's case that under the agreement of sale dated 17-4-1985, the defendant agreed to sell the suit flat to him for a consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/-. The agreement of sale which was reduced to writing contains inter alia the following terms :i) The payment of earnest money of Rs. 15,000/- to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant on or before the execution of the agreement.ii) The balance amount of Rs. 12,35,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff on the society accepting him as its member and on the defendant putting him in possession of the ...

Dempo Engineering Works Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT316Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein are registered with the Central Excise Authorities to manufacture goods falling under Chapter 89 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In February 1996 they entered into a contract between M/s. V.S. Dempo & Co. Ltd. for the purpose of construction and delivery of one No. 2000 DWT Iron Ore Barge to the buyer. The barge was constructed and delivered to M/s. V.S.Dempo & Co. Ltd. under a Bill of Entry declaring Rs. 2,67,36,861/- as the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and cleared without payment of duty claiming exemption under Customs Notification No. 11/97 dt. 1.3.97. The barge was manufactured in the Customs bonded warehouse in accordance with the procedures laid down under chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Manufacture Of Other Operations In Warehouse Regulations, 1966. The Department was of the view that the provisions of the Central Excise Act, had been evaded with an intention to evade payme...

Ramesh H. Ashar and Arun H. Ashar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for early hearing of appeal have been filed by the appellants on the ground that the issue is dispute is covered in their favour by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1995 (80) ELT 507] wherein it has been held that penalty provisions not existing in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 prior to 13.5.94, no penalty can be imposed for any offence common prior to the above mentioned date. We note on hearing both sides that the period involved is both prior to as well as subsequent to 13.5.94 and therefore it cannot be said that the issue is squarely covered by the above mentioned Delhi High Court decision. Therefore no ground for (sic) it has been made out. We also note that the Tribunal has waived predeposit of penalty on Shri Arun H. Ashar and only direct predeposit of Rs.2 lakhs of Shri Ramesh H. Ashar. The argument regarding imposition of composite penalty ...