Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Aglowmed Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT196Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide final Order No. C-II/1392-93/2000/WZB dt. 9.5.2000, The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue on the ground that each of the four show cause notices in question were dated later in the period of short levy that they sought to recover, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. Cotspun Limited [1999 (113)ELT 353 (S.C.)] and in the case of Rainbow Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Collector [1994 (74) ELT 3 (S.C.)]. It is the contention of the Ld. DR while arguing the application for rectification of mistake purported to have arisen in the Tribunals final order cited Supra that since the law was subsequently amended vide the Finance Act, 2000 validating action taken under Section 11A of Act, 1944 Central Excise Act during the period commencing on and from the 17.11.1980 till the date of the Presidents assent to the Finance Bill that the Bench ought to have hold that the demand was sustainable without dismissing the appeal...

Newsprint Trading and Vs. C.C. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT205Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed before him.2. This appeal is against various orders of the Asstt. Collector of Customs in charge of the Disposal Section of Customs House. The dispute relates to the correctness of the price at which the various consignments of newsprint were sold in the course of auction by the Custom's House to the appellant. The appellant's contention seems to be that the price at which the goods were sold is incorrect.3. Doubtless, the goods were sold in pursuance of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. However, the modalities of the transaction sale between the Custom House and the buyer are not governed by the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. They appear to be in the nature of contractual obligation. Therefore we are at a loss to understand how the Collector (Appeals) entertained these appeals at all. Further, the order, which was appealed to the Collector (Appeals) itself pose no grievance to th...

Electronics Instrumentation and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT75Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications relate to three appeals filed against a single order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under which he-had disposed off the appeals filed before him by M/s Electronic Instrumentation and Control, who are the present appellant before the Tribunal. On perusal of the facts it appears that the issues are capable of being disposed off at this stage itself and therefore the appeals themselves are taken up for disposal.2. The appellants were advised telegraphically to appear today but they are not present. These appeals are therefore disposed off after hearing Shri B.B. Sarkar and granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit.3. In the three orders challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) duty amounting to Rs. 65,384/- was confirmed and penalties totally amounting to Rs. 5,270/- were imposed. Commissioner (Appeals) in disposing of the stay applications, directed pre-deposit of above 50% of the duties confirmed in these cases. The assessee informed the Commissioner that t...

Jm Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case provisional assessment order was passed by the Superintendent of Customs on 15.2.93 provisionally assessing the bill of entry charging a total duty of Rs. 1,97,19,992/-. Against the order of provisional assessment the importers went up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who went into the issue on merits and held against the importers; hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. On hearing both sides and noting that the assessment has not yet been finalised and that no appeal lies against an order of provisional assessment, we hold that the proper course to have been adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) has to pass an order rejecting the appeal filed before him. He has instead gone into merits of issue, which is not open to him to do so. Since no appeal lies against order of provisional assessment, the Commissioner (Appeals) committed illegality in proceedings by passing order on the appeal treating it as maintainable.Therefore without going into the merits of th...

Rajesh Poddar and Loha Ispat P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC634

1. On hearing both sides on stay application, the appeal was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.2. The appellants are registered dealers. They were delivering a consignment of locally purchased scrap to a manufacturer. That scrap was intercepted. The goods were covered under a delivery challan.Subsequently, however, invoice under Rule 57GG was made. Still subsequently, the employee and the Director both admitted that the invoice was wrongly made. Physical check of the goods in the dealer's premises showed substantial shortage. After issue of show cause notice, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai passed ex-parte order confiscating the scrap with the truck and releasing them on payment of fines. He restrained the dealer from passing any Modvat credit on the scrap. He directed reversal of Modvat credit on the goods found short in stock. He imposed penalties under Rule 571(4) on the dealer and on the Director under Rule 209A of the Central E...

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT69Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application by Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (Zandu for short) is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.11 crores approx. and penalty of equivalent amount. Application by D.M. Parikh and Ashok Kumar Dua, Director and Plant Manager respectively are for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs.2. Zandu manufactured ayurvedic medicaments in the factory. It cleared these medicaments claiming the benefit of exemption contained in notification 75/94 (prior to 23-7-1996) and heading 3 of the table to notification 75/94. These grant exemption inter alia to ayurvedic medicaments manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books specified in the first Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and "sold under the name as specified in such books." The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the finding that the applicant sold the goods not under that name but under another name and deliberately suppressed the fac...

Victoria Timber Supply Co. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR508; 2002(1)BomCR149; 2002(1)MhLj407

1. This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dated April 3, 2001 in Notice of Motion No. 1495 of 2001. By the said Notice of Motion, appellants - saw mill owners' moved the trial Court to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents-Defendants from interfering with their business of running saw mill or sealing the same or to withhold the transit passes. They also prayed for a direction to the Respondents to renew the licence for the running the saw mills. The trial Court by the impugned order declined to grant ad-interim relief as prayed for. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal.2. It is contended that the trial Court has wrongly accepted the stand taken on behalf of the Respondents that the subject saw mill is within 10 Kms radius of the forest area and covered by the circular dated February 16, 2001, which was the justification for refusing to renew the licence in favour of the appellants, which has since ...

Sudhir Kondiram Jadhav and ors. Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR614]; (2002)ILLJ670Bom

1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. Amendment allowed.3. In this writ petition, the Petitioners pray for a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents directing them to abolish the contract labour system in respect of categories of Sweepers, House Keepers, Helpers, Garden Helpers or for jobs of the same or similar nature which arc performed by the permanent workers presently, or in the post of Shop Floor Sweeper of any other Section of the factory and categoryor jobs of canteen boys or same or similar jobs in the factory canteens, etc., and to absorb the Petitioner-workers mentioned in Annexure 'A' as regular employees of the First Respondent-Company. The alternative prayer in the writ petition is to direct the Second and Third Respondents to start proceedings under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 to decide that the Petitioner-workers are doing the work of permanent nature and those mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Contrac...

Uttam Jagannathrao Bodke Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR182

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner was employed as Accounts Officer under the respondent No. 2 Corporation and he has brought in question the legality and propriety of the order of termination dated 31st December, 1989 issued by the Managing Directing of respondent No. 2.2. On completion of his graduation the petitioner came to be appointed as Accounts Assistant under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited which is now called as Cotton Growers Marketing Federation and he joined the employment of respondent No. 2 on 15th April, 1976. He came to be promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Grade-II with effect from 1st October, 1976 and he was given the reward of annual increment with effect from 1st October, 1977. He was further promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Grade-I with effect from 9th October, 1983 and the reward of extra increment was granted to him with effect from 1st April, 1976 in appreciation of his performance. He was issued a show cause not...