Mumbai Court October 2002 Judgments

Rathi Transpower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT59Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue raised in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellants for small scale exemption under Notifications No. 175/86 and 1/93 in view of the use of the trade name/brand name "Lovejoy" on their products. It is not in dispute that manufacturers affixing the brand name of another person on their products are excluded from the benefit of small scale exemption under these notifications. The impugned order denying the small scale exemption has been passed on the basis that the brand name "Lovejoy" belonged to M/s. Lovejoy Inc. USA.2. The appellants have submitted that the finding reached in the impugned order is not maintainable in the facts of the case. Further, it is erroneous in law. The submission of the appellant is that the brand name Lovejoy belonged to the appellants themselves and it had been registered in their favour as early as 1976 under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. During the hearing of the case our attention was specifically drawn in this connection to c...

SpIn Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty demanded, and penalty imposed by the order of the Additional Commissioner, which was in appeal before him.3. The notice issued to the appellant alleged that quantities of woven fabrics of high density polyethylene and sacks made therefrom which the appellant manufactured in its factory at Akola and transferred to its factory at Bilaspur, either for the manufacture of fabrics or for further processing of sacks have not discharged the correct duty that was payable. It alleged that the cost of the manufacture of the goods which was the basis for the value on which duty was payable was incorrect, since it did not take into account the relevant figures for the period when the goods were manufactured but were based on figures of the preceding year. The demand for duty entirely relates to the goods cleared beyond the normal period of limitation. The notic...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhore Steel Griptapes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT218Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the goods described by the manufacturer as "waste of electrical insulation tapes". Each of the respondents, manufactured as job worker of Bhor Industries, electrical insulation tapes.2. We are concerned in these appeals with the product that emerged during such manufacture, which had been described by the respondent as tape ends, tape scrap, side cuts, tape waste. The manufacturers cleared these goods under heading 8546.00 as electrical insulators. The Deputy Chief Chemist of the department, after testing the sample of the product, found that the sample from Bhor Steel Grip Tapes to be a yellow coloured tape with very little adhesive property. He found the sample from Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd to be "black coloured self-adhesive plastic tape and it is composed of base PVC film coated on the side with adhesive compound weight". The notice issued to each of the assessees proposed classification of the goo...

Liva Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT719Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether its product, Ranitidine tablets are to be classified under Chapter Heading 3003.20, as claimed by the appellant or under Heading 3003.10 as alleged by the department.2. The name 'Ranitidine' appears in Pharmacopoeia and the same is used by the appellant. The mark 'Liva' on the packing indicated the name/house mark of the manufacturer as is made mandatory under the Indian Drug Rules. According to the appellant it does not make the medicine patent or proprietary. On the other hand, the department took the view that the appellant's products are to be classified under Heading 3003.10 since the packing of the Ranitidine shows logo/identification mark of the appellant bringing under P&P medicines.3. The appellant submits that the department has accepted the classification of the products under Chapter Heading 3003.20 under Original Order No. 34/2002, dated 3-4-2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central ...

Chetak Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty, it appeared that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, the prayer was granted and the appeal was taken up for disposal.2. The appellants imported CVD players, perfumes, cordless phones, calculators and other miscellaneous goods and filed bills of entry No.118 on 7-5-2002. The goods were examined in the presence of DRI Officers and orders were made for verification of the prices declared in association with the Directorate of Valuation. The value of the goods was increased, the bill of entry was assessed and concurrently audited. Thereafter the statement of the proprietor of the importing concern namely, Kenya was recorded. He claimed to be a front man for others, which was one Rashid Shaik in the present consignment. He confessed ignorance about the aspect of valuation Rashid Shaik in his statement admitted under invoicing. His brother in Dubai would pay full...

Alstom Power Boilers Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and anr. and Mrs. Da ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR202; [2002]112CompCas674(Bom); (2003)2CompLJ210(Bom); [2003]42SCL197(Bom)

R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioners, the transferor companies, have prayed for sanction of the scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of the petitioners with the transferee company, the APIL, under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, with effect from March 31, 2001. The APIL the transferee company, has also sought sanction of the said scheme in Company Petition No. 338 of 2002. 2. In the present petition the scheme envisages the merger of (a) Alstom Transport Ltd. ; (b) Alstom Systems Ltd. ; (c) Alstom Power Boilers and in Company Petition No. 338 of 2002 the scheme envisages the merger of Alstom Power India Ltd. 3. Pursuant to the prescribed notices, the Regional Director by his affidavit dated August 7, 2002 has stated that the scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of the creditors and shareholders. Similarly, the official liquidator has also under Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, conveyed his no objection to the scheme and has categorically made a statement ...

Harinarayan G. Bajaj Vs. Securities Appellate Tribunal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]42SCL548(Bom)

ORDER1. Both the appeals are directed against the common order dated 5th September, 2002 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The appeals are filed under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the SEBI Act. When the appeals came up for admission, we pointed out that the order under appeal is only an order made on procedural matters and right of the parties are not affected by those orders and consequently the appeals may not be maintainable. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and respondents on the maintainability of appeals. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Section 15Z creates a wide and broad appellate jurisdiction and every kind of judicial order could be challenged in appeal. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the order is merely a procedural order and it does not affect the rights of the parties and, ...

Swastik Oil Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR454; 2003(2)BomCR549; (2003)2BOMLR250; 2003(156)ELT26(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj692

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this group of three petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in declining to grant duty draw back on the exports effected by the petitioners principally on two grounds. First ground being that the denial of draw back without assigning any reason whatsoever is wholly arbitrary and secondly as per the policy decision taken by the Government, six exporters named in the petition who had exported similar goods have been granted draw back and the petitioners have been discriminated without any justification.2. Since the issue raised in all these petitions are similar, they were heard together. For the sake of convenience, we have set out hereinbelow the facts in Writ Petition No. 3086 of 1988 and the decision in this petition will apply to the other two petitions.3. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of Caster Oil Medicinal B. P. ('said goods' for short) and also export it. In the year 1977, Item 1204(b) was introduced to the...

Rambhau Sitaramji Bhave Vs. Nathuji Laxmanji Bhonde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)MhLj658

P.S. Brahme, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30-9-1991 in Writ Petition No. 2370/1987 wherein the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant / tenant challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, reversing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and restoring that of the Tahsildar, by which the Tahsildar held that the respondent was entitled to possession of the agricultural land, came to be dismissed.2. For deciding the question involved, we would first mention a few facts of the case. The appellant took on lease 1 acre and 8 gunthas of land of survey No. 42/2 of Aiwajpur from the respondent on 10-5-1972 for a period of 10 years, under a registered Kaul Patta,. The lease was to expire at the end of the year 1981-82 and the respondent made an application on 28-4-1982 for possession of the land under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred ...

Shatrughna Shravan Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR420; 2003BomCR(Cri)1195; 2003CriLJ790; 2003(1)MhLj963

S.S. Parkar, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard the counsel.2. The present petition is placed before this Bench pursuant to the reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 11th December 2001 on the ground that there is conflict of decisions in the judgments delivered by the two learned Single Judges of this Court, one in the case of Ramnath Sadashiv Koltharkar v. State of Maharashtra reported in : 1999(5)BomCR255 and the other in the case of Yunus Daud Bhura v. State of Maharashtra reported in : (2001)4BOMLR181 . Before both the Courts the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 framed under the said Act were under consideration. Rule 7 was framed by the Central Government whereby it is provided that an offence committed under the provisions of the above Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the ran...