Mumbai Court January 2002 Judgments
New Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex., Pune-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT720Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,66,234/- was granted and the appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The appellant manufactures sugar and molasses. A quantity of 1278.73 MTs of molasses stored in a pucca pit attained spontaneous combustion on 9-6-1995. The Central and State excise authorities were immediately informed and measures were taken to put the fire out. Authorities of both Departments visited the scene, samples of the molasses were examined by the Dy. Chief Chemist who certified the molasses as unfit for human consumption. On 19-6-1995 the assessees sought remission of duty and also for permission to remove the burned molasses. On 17-7-1995 show cause notice was issued demanding duty as shown above.The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) remitted the penalty but upheld the confirmation of duty. Hence the present appeal.3. Spontaneous combustion built...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Pavro Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Mumbai-iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai confirming the duty demand of Rs. 19,469.77 by applying the extended period of limitation against the appellant and imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant.2. The appellants are holders of A4 licences to whom a show cause notice was issued on 1-2-1984 alleging that during the period 1-4-1983 to 14-12-1983 they manufactured and cleared excisable goods falling under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff namely, push button switches, toggle switches, cut leads, multi turn dials and key board switches without payment of duty even after exceeding the clearance value of Rs. 40 lakhs. The as-sessee's contention that the demand was barred by limitation for the period up to the end of July, 1983, that no duty can be demanded on cut leads since the activity carried out, i.e., of merely cutting of running lengths of wires into shorter length did not amount to manufacture and that the re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Kopran Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT688Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue seeks condonation of delay in preferring the above appeal. The grounds for the delay are explained as delay in obtaining various documents/records and connected papers from Divisional Office/Range Office which delayed the processing of the file. Shortage of staff and annual transfers are also pleaded as grounds. We find that the only papers that have been filed are the adjudication order and the impugned order in appeal. The office of the Assistant Collector is situated at Belapur and the office of the Commissioner is in the same premises. The other grounds made are equally flimsy. In similar situation in more than one case the Tribunal had held that no ground for condonation has been made out. No valid ground for condonation is made out and we dismiss the COD application. As a result the appeal is dismissed as time barred....
Tag this Judgment!Fluid Line Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex., Pune
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT673Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are not present. On perusal of the appeal memorandum and on hearing the departmental representative the appeal was admitted and was taken up for final disposal.2. The appellant manufactured castings and cleared them on payment of duty. The recipient manufacturer found them as substandard and returned them by discharging the burden of duty as casting under Rule 57F(1)(ii). The same goods were latter cleared by the present appellant as scrap on payment of duty as leviable on scrap. Differential duty was demanded holding that the goods were leviable to duty at the rate of castings. Against the confirmation made by the Assistant Commissioner and against the imposition of penalty by him the appellant filed an appeal. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) they cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector v. Omni Forgings Gujarat Pvt.Ltd. - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 282. In that judgment the Tribunal had held that in identical circumstances where the goods were used by th...
Tag this Judgment!Voltas Employees Union Vs. Voltas Ltd. and N.J. Gajbhiye, Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR425; (2002)2BOMLR598; (2002)IIILLJ9Bom
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent ofthe parties, rule called out and heard. RespondentNo.2 is not served and at the request of thepetitioner, service on Respondent No.2 is dispensedwith as Respondent No.2 is a formal party.2. In this petition, the petitioner, which isa trade union, has challenged the order dated20.12.2000 permitting closure of Cooling AppliancesBusiness Division (for short, hereinafter referredto as CABD) of Respondent No.1 undertaking atThane. The petitioner has also prayed for a stay ofnotice of closure dated 30.10.2001 and thepermission granted for closure on 20.12.2001 tillthe reference which has been made to the IndustrialTribunal under 25-O(5) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to asthe said Act) is decided.3. The facts giving rise to the petition areas under:Respondent No.1 has a factory at Thaneemploying about 1000 workmen. About 161 workmen ofthese workmen are working in the CABD in the Thanefactory. Over a period of t...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Sadasheo Nandanwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR710; 2002(4)MhLj664
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. When this petition came up for final hearing, Shri C.G. Madkholkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a preliminary submission that anomalous position was occurred because of restrictive interpretation of the provisions of Chapter XVII, Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960.2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents of reverting the petitioner as a sequel to an order made by the CasteVerification Authority holding that the petitioner does not belong to a particular backward community. The post held by the petitioner as a promotional post having been reserved for that backward community, the petitioner should not be continued in that post and hence he was reverted after the decision of the Government that his caste was not that for which the post is reserved. The learned counsel has not gone into the merits of the case but has canvassed that by Judgment of this Court deli...
Tag this Judgment!Nnalini Ramkrishana Thakur Vs. Shobha Devidas Mokal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR540
J.G. Chitre, J.1. After hearing the vehement arguments submitted on behalf of the rival litigants and after referring to the material on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that there has been failure of justice on subtle point and that is revolving around the service of notice to the parties. The notice should have been sent by registered post acknowledgement due which has not been done in this matter and which has not been properly considered by M.R.T. in the judgment which has been assailed by this petition. In addition to that it is pertinent to note that the notice was sent on 12th instant of March 1986 when the proceeding was fixed on 15th March, 1986. In all probability the said notice would not have been served. Failure on the part of the M.R.T. to take appropriate cognizance of the subtle fact also resulted in failure of justice.2. The minors have not been impleaded as parties. It is their right to be heard. That aspect has also to be considered.3. When dealing with thi...
Tag this Judgment!Jayashree Dattatraya Chavan Vs. Parvatabai Baburao Chavan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR516
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The appellant is the mother of two school going children. She was aggrieved by the order passed by the District Court under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the said two children, who were at that time residing with the elder brother of the deceased husband of the appellant. The District Court had rejected the application for custody filed by the appellant, after interviewing the children. The District Court had recorded reasons for its order denying custody of the children to the appellant mother.2. By his order dated 8th December, 2000 my learned Brother, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., had reversed the decision of the District Court and had granted the custody of the said minor children to the appellant mother. He had also allowed the children to meet the uncle and the grandmother with whom they were residing. According to the learned Judge, since it was a matter of custody and welfare of the children, he in effect desired to observe and keep w...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Ramdhan Singh Vs. Keki Rattansha Kalapesi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR122; 2002(3)BomCR579
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiff praying that he be permitted to carry out amendment to the plaint pursuant to the consent order dated 11th March, 1982 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, in this suit, and that, this Court be pleased to condone the delay of 19 years in carrying out the said amendment.2. The prayers made in the chamber summons and the facts which led to these prayers are not only peculiar, but are shocking.Briefly stated, the plaintiff Jagdish Ramdhan Singh filed a suit against defendant No. 1 Keki Rattansha Kalapesi, since deceased in the year 1981 for specific performance of sale of the immoveable property described in para 1 of the plaint. Admittedly, original defendant No. 1 Keki Rattansha Kalapesi was the owner of a plot of land bearing Survey Nos. 37 and 42, admeasuring about 2,79,994 square yards equivalent to 2,34,102.97 square meters or thereabout situated at village Charkop in Borivli, ...
Tag this Judgment!White Silco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT674Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the exemption contained in Entry 39 of the table to the Notification 5/98 will not be available to the precipitated silica (silicon dioxide) and aluminium silicate manufactured by the appellant. The entry exempts silicon in all forms falling under Chapter 28 or 38. No doubt the goods that the applicant had classified was under I leading 2811.90 (in the case of silicon dioxide) and 2839.90 (in the case of aluminium silicate). It is however difficult to conclude that aluminium silicate and silicon dioxide is silicon in any form, means by which is metallic silicon. The question is scope of the term "silicon" in the entry to the notification - docs it include the metallic silicon or compound of silicon. It has to be decided by examining the words in Chemistry. We consider it appropriate at this stage to ask the applicant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within a month from the receipt of this order. In determining the amount we have taken note of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »