Mumbai Court November 2002 Judgments

Udai S/O Harinandan Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR311; 2003(4)BomCR766; 2003(1)MhLj844

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. At the oral request of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 is ordered to be deleted.2. Rule. Mr. R. S. Sundaram, the learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the respondent No. 3, Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Central Railway, Mumbai dated August 2, 1999 at Annexure-U to the petition in the light of an order passed by the Director General - R.P.F. dated January 2, 2002 annexed to his additional affidavit in reply at Annexure 'CC'.4. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving with the respondents in Railway Protection Force. His service record was clean and unblemished. However, an adverse entry came to be made by the third respondent vide his order dated August 2, 1999, in the Confidential Reports for the year 1998-99. The relevant part thereof reads as under :-...

Godawari Steel Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(157)ELT31(Bom)

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri Barlinge, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-company which is an assessee under the Central Excise Act of 1944. It is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Round Bars/CID/flats falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A show cause notice was issued on 1st of March, 1998 alleging that while the assessee had accounted for a quantity of 1168.465 MT and 554.540 MT 1995-96 during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively of the excisable goods and paid duty accordingly. On verification of the record it was noticed that, the assessee had manufactured 2445.230 MT and 1367.366 MT respectively during the same period, thus, suppressed the production of the excisable goods, with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise Duty due for the said period. This show cause notice was issued by invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the petitioner submitted its reply and by order-in-original dated 31st December, 1998 the claim for an ...

A.J. Saldhana Vs. Additional Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR364

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule.2. The learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondent No. 1. Shri Purohit waives service for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7. He undertakes to file power on behalf of respondent No. 7, within two weeks. By consent the matter is heard.3. The writ petition impugns an order passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur on 16-5-1998 by which he has refused to entertain an appeal against the order dated 28-1-1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur on the ground the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and that he, as the Appellate Authority had no power to condone the delay. The order has been passed on the basis of judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh v. Somani Radio Corporation. The ratio in the said judgment is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Division Bench judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Babasaheb Kedar Ginning Pressing Va Prakriya Sanstha Ltd., Saoner v. Additional Collector, Nagpur & another, reported in...

Cit Vs. Smt. A.S. Rukmani Ammal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN149(Bom)

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.One A.S. Savadappan Gounder, deceased husband of the respondent, A.S. Rukmani Ammal (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) executed a Will by which his property was bequeathed in her favour and his two minor children, namely, Sowdeswari and Ganesan. A.S. Savadappan Gounder appointed his cousin brother, A. Savadappan as an executor to administer his properties in terms of the Will, and the executor accordingly continued the business of the Estate. He has also invested a sum of Rs. 7,500 each as capital of the two minors in the firms, M/s. K. Nallaya Gounder and A. Savadappan Gounder. Two minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. The share income of two minors were included in the income of Estate of late A.S. Savadappan Gounder, but the executor Savadappan objected to the same claiming that the share income belonged to the minors individually and should not be included in the hands of the Estate. The Appellate Tribunal, in the appeal preferred by th...

Prayas Castings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT185Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12-8-97. The issue raised herein is whether appellant's claim for allowing additional credit is barred by time as it was made after the expiry of six months from the date of taking the initial credit.2. Appellants are manufacturer of Unmachined Copper Casting and Proofmachined Copper Casting. Unwrought copper alloys covered by the Heading 74.03 and copper waste and scrap covered by Heading 74.04 were inputs used in the production of the final product. During the relevant period, deemed credit of Rs. 8/050/- per ton was allowed on copper alloys, un-wrought and Rs. 3,800/- per ton was allowed on copper waste and scrap. By mistake the appellant took deemed credit on unwrought copper alloys at the rate of Rs. 3,800/- per ton instead of Rs. 8,050/- per ton on 1-9-92. On realizing the mistake they filed application for availing the difference of credit of Rs. 3,455/- on 1-3-...

Seiko Plast, Mangilal K. Mehta and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Seiko Plast is a manufacturer of plastic articles and Mangilal Mehta and Ashok Nahar are its partners. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner, demanded duty on the goods removed by the assessee without payment of duty, imposed a penalty on it under Section 11AC of Rs. 1,01,455/- equal to the duty demanded and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 52A, 209A read with Rule 173Q. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each on the other appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals before him for failure to deposit the entire penalty. Hence these appeals.3. Normally I would have sent the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) after passing appropriate orders on the question of recovery. However, the issue being simple and financial hardship is being pleaded, I have decided to take up the appeal themselves, after waiving deposits.4. The common representative for the appellants does not dispute the liability to duty which he says already been paid. ...

Ramdeo Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT133Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Ramdeo Jewellers imported and cleared from Chennai in 1987 automatic chain making machines. The machines were cleared at concessional rate of duty in terms of the exemption contained in Notification 159/86 which grants exemption to such machines, which are used in the manufacture of gems and jewellery by the registered exporters and others specified therein and used in processing or manufacture of jewellery for export, subject to the condition that the importer furnish an undertaking to the effect that the goods shall be used for the purpose cited above. Subsequently, these machines were found in the premises at Mumbai of the importer and seized by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in September, 1991. The notice issued to the importer proposed to deny the benefit of the exemption on the ground that its condition had not been complied with, and confiscation of the machines and penalty. Adjudicating on this notice, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumba...

Omkar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1024Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant is a textile processor. In its application filed on 26-4-1999, it applied for determination of the annual production capacity in terms of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules and the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 for determination of its production capacity based on the volume of the stenter. It is necessary to mention that these rules came into effect on 16th December, 1998. While its application was pending determination by the Commissioner, the appellant on its own determined its capacity and commenced the duty from April onwards. The Commissioner communicated his determination of the capacity on the duty payable by the assessee on 27th August, 1999. In the meantime, the appellant came to know in June, 1999 that it had short paid the duty payable by it upon its determination of the capacity, due to arithmetic error of Rs. 28,585/- and paid this duty on its own on 25th June. The notice issued to it on 4th October, 1999 pr...

Indian Cordage Factory Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT111Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The notice issued to Indian Cordage Factory, the assessee, alleged short-payment of duty on quantities of nylon tapes that it manufactured and cleared between 6-8-1994 and 31-10-1994. After considering the reply, the Commissioner in his order has confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee as well as on Ram Todi, its partner. Hence, these appeals.2. The appellants are absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and other relevant papers and heard the departmental representative.3. In reply to the notice, the representative of the appellant had admitted that there was a failure to pay duty. This took place because the appellant inadvertently calculated erroneously the benefit of the exemption available in terms of Notification No. 1/93 and continued to clear goods without payment of duty even after the duty free limit of Rs. 30 lakhs had been reached. It stated that an amount of Rs. 95,086.62 had been debited fro...

Kanhaiyalal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT674Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported 9 Consignments of Yellow Poppy Seeds from Turkey. Nine show cause notices were issued in the case of each import.In the 5 show cause notices issued on 8-6-2001, it was alleged that the goods were not permissible imports inasmuch as the conditions of DGFT Notification No. 27 (RE-2000)/1997-2002, dt. 1-8-2000 had been contravened. In these show cause notices and the next 4 show cause notices dt. 27-8-2001 the second allegation was made namely that the value was wrongly declared thereby rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act, and also proposing to increase the value to US$ 900 PMT (CIF) from that declared by the importers between the range of 500 US$ (FOB) PMT to 625 US$ PMT (FOB).The importers contested these allegations. The Commissioner Customs, Pune after hearing the importers passed orders enhancing the valuation, confiscating the goods but permitting the redemption on payment of fine and imposing penalties upon the impo...