Mumbai Court January 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Maithri Leather Exports P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Ap), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT572Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal was taken up for consideration with consent of both side after having waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. The applicant appellants is licencee issued in its favour a Value Based Advance Licence (VABAL). They exported Leather Garments before the licence was issued to them, The endorsement of fact is also made in the licence as well as in the DGFT Book. DGFT Authority have waived LUT.3. The Appellants have transferred the licence in favour of VeeKay Enterprises Bombay. The appellants assessee state before us that after the endorsement they did not know about the fate of the licence. The product exported is exempted from payment of duty by Notification No.27/93. It would appear from the facts that in gross violation of the Notification No. 27/93-C.E. demand was made inasmuch as input Modvat credit has been taken in the manufacture of the final goods exported which are exempted. The Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai-99...
Eldee Velvets and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Mumbai-iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT648Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for waiver of duty of Rs. 2,17,660/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The case of the department is that by Gazette notification dated 15-1-97 the duty leviable on the production of fabric falling under Chapter 5801 on the basis of the interpretation of the Notifications 26/96, 31/96 and 16/96, the rate of duty during the period from 1-3-97 to 31-3-97 has been demanded. The assessee pleading before us is that in spite of the best efforts they were unable to get the corrigendum namely the 15-1-97 notification. The demand in respect of period from 15-1-97 to 28-2-97 was not confirmed even though show cause notice for the said period was issued. In view of this, it is argued that it is wrong in law to demand duty for the period 1-3-97 to 31-3-97. The same argument will hold good in greater force in respect of imposition of penalty. After hearing the ld. DR, we are prima facie of the view that the appellants have a very strong case. We therefore waive demand of duty ...
Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT598Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 17,44,818.23 and penalty of Rs. 35 lakhs. The facts leading to the impugned order are as follows : 2. The applicants are a 100% EOU manufacturing readymade garments. In the manufacture of such garments namely, trousers, certain waste and trimming had arisen which had been destroyed in the presence of the jurisdictional officer. Jurisdictional officers studied the input-output norms, and compared the wastage generated with the norms.It was found that the waste generated was significantly higher than what the norms indicated. The duty referred to above was computed and demanded vide the show cause notice. After hearing the assessees the demand was confirmed and the penalty imposed. The EOU, hence, filed the appeal and the present application for waiver and stay.3. The goods were imported under Notification 13/81. We have seen the text of this notification. The notification permits import of raw materials free of duty "when imported...
Arco Whitney Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT308Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is tor waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1,89,980/- and penalty of Rs. 18,980/-.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Asstt. Commissioner (whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the hydraulic machinery manufactured by the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 1/97 for the reason that it bore on it the mark "AW" which belonged not to the applicant but to American Refrigeration Co.3. The contention of the representative of the applicant that it purchased the entire business including the propriety, goodwill and right to its trade mark of American Refrigeration Co. insofar as it related to manufacture of hydraulic machinery. Sub-clause (h) of Clause 1 specifically includes trade marks.4. The departmental representative adopts the reasoning in the Commissioner's order. This is that the symbol "AW" has been retained by American Refrigeration Co. for its operation o...
Vijay Fire Protection Systems Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT686Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application by the respondent for out of turn hearing of the appeal filed by the Commissioner is on the ground that the department is insisting upon continuation of the bank guarantee given by it during the earlier stage of the proceedings.I do not find this as an acceptable ground. It is claimed (it appears with some justification) that the department has no legal authority to demand continuance of the bank guarantee. The proper course for the respondent could be to resist furnishing bank guarantee, if so advised.This is in any case, no ground for early hearing....
Rameshwar Prasad ThakurdIn Pande Vs. Deputy Collector (Enc) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom150
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J. 1. The Petitioner is hereby taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (i.e. & R.) Tribunal, Bombay, in appeal No. 59 of 1983 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the amount deposited by the petitioner has been directed to be paid to the Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal.2. The property concerned is situated in Vile Parte East owned by the petitioner Rameshwar Prasad Thakur din Pande bearing C.T.S. No. 225 Military Road, Marol.3. The matter revolves around notification which was issued by the State of Maharashtra on 24-3-1983 declaring the said property of the petitioner as 'slum' in view of provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience) which was published in the Government Gazette dated 22-3-1979. The petitioner had challenged the earlier notification by filing the appeal bearing No. 184 of 1980 whi...
Madura Coats Limited Vs. P.C. Rathod and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR619; [2002(94)FLR296]; (2002)IIILLJ507Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court granting respondent No. 2 reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back-wages from July 15, 1987.It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 workman was employed as Accounts Assistant in the petitioner's Sales Office on a monthly salary. The respondent-workman was required to perform various duties including clerical work. He was expected to make vouchers for daily expenses, receive cheques, cash, drafts from customers and to deposit the same into the petitioner's account with the bank. The workman was also required to prepare a statement of account, collect bank statement and send them to the company's Head Office at Ambsamudram. The petitioner alleged that on March 7, 1987, the Sales Manager Chatterji learnt that there was a heavy debit amount or Rs. 26 lacs on account of dishonouring of cheques issued by their regular customer Indu Exports of India. The Sales Manager as the superior o...
Sub-divisional Officer and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Shankar Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR224; [2002(94)FLR891]
R.S. Mohite, J.1. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges an Award dated 2-7-1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Akola. The matter came to Labour Court by way of reference sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The sole respondent was in the employment of the petitioner since 1977 and was terminated on 1-8-1985. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was working as the Mailcooli. It was contended by the respondent that he was a permanent worker, who had worked continuously for more than 240 days in each preceding year. He was terminated with effect from 1-8-1985 without assigning any reasons and without giving one month's notice or offering retrenchment compensation. It was further his grievance that his juniors were retained in the services. The present petitioner had filed writ...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat-i Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Dye Chem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT611Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has granted the benefit of small scale sector exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for the period 1990 to 1992. This benefit has been granted after taking into consideration instructions issued pursuant to which trade notice was issued by Mumbai Central Excise Collectorate No. 26/87, dt. 28-4-87. This Trade Notice provided that units registered provisionally with the State Government authorities, could be allowed duty concession under the notification.These instructions prescribed that after such provisional registration from the State Government authority are obtained, they could be accepted for the purpose of duty concession as after proper verification.2. We have heard learned DR for Revenue, and considered the points raised in the appeals. He submits that the Trade Notice issued in 1987 has been further clarified by a Trade Notice No. 33/92, dt. 13-7-92 which stipulated in that assessments...
Manubhai U. Patel Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajkot
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT53Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these group of 9 appeals filed by 4 Assessees carrying on their business of manufacturing and selling varieties of clock namely, simple and musical clock. The 4 assessees and the respective Appeals are as follows :- The other appellants namely, M.U. Patel and R.B. Patel have filed 5 appeals. Appeals (E-97/95, E-98/95, E-99/95 and E-100/95) have been filed by M.U. Patel wherein personal penalties totalling Rs. 2,25,000/- imposed on him under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules have been challenged. As far as the Personal Penalty imposed on R.B. Patel is concerned, he has filed an Appeal E-105/99 wherein he has challenged imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000.00.2. The assessee-appellants, were engaged in manufacturing of 2 varieties of clocks namely simple clock and musical clock. Four orders in original have been challenged. We are concerned with the orders of confirmation of demand passed by the adjudicating authority where under he has confirmed the duty demand and imposed pen...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »