Mumbai Court December 2002 Judgments

Jayantilal B. Shah Vs. Commr. of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT220Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Penalty has been imposed for the reason that the transaction between M/s. Raj Gems, of which the applicant is a partner, and Shri Mustafa Ahadi, of selling 56 carats of diamonds (out of a total quantity of 1762.99 carats of diamonds) seized from one Iranian passenger, Mr. Daryoush Khodabandheloo, on 4-3-1996 when he was in the process of boarding flight to Dubai, subsequently confiscated by the impugned order, was not in consonance with the law. Mustafa Ahadi is the person who has handed over diamonds in question to Daryoush Khodaband-heloo.2. On hearing both sides and noting that, prima facie, selling diamonds to a person of foreign origin is not an offence and further noting that there is no material on record to show that the applicant herein had knowledge that the diamonds would be handed over to someone who would attempt to smuggle them out...

Finolex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Finolex Industries Ltd, the appellant is engaged in its factory at Ratnagiri, in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride resin. The appellant receives ethylene one of the raw materials for the manufacture of this commodity liquified in bulk. The tankers carrying it tie up alongside the jetty belonging to the appellant extending about half a kilometres into the sea. On this jetty is located an unloading arm which is, we are told that, some kind of crane. By use of this unloading arm, the pipes laid on the jetty and connected to tanks containing ethylene in the tankers ethylene is transported through this flexible pipe to the pipe on the jetty which transports it to the tanks located kilometre and a half away. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the parts of the moving arm that the appellant received and installed are capital goods, and whether the duty paid on these parts will be available to it as credit in terms of Rule 57Q (for part of the period) and Rule 57...

Telco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT145Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur vide the Order-in-Original No. 56/Commr./2001, dt. 31-10-2001 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,54,43,68,025/- against M/s. TELCO Ltd. and had imposed penalty of equal amount on M/s. TELCO Ltd. He had also imposed penalties upon 4 officers of the assessee. Five appeals were filed against this order and applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalties imposed. These applications were disposed of vide Order No. C-I/2474-79/WZB/2002, dt. 22-8-2002. The Tribunal after considering all the submissions made and the complex issues involved directed M/s. TELCO to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 crores as a precondition to hearing of their appeal. The waiver was granted to the officers unconditionally. M/s. TELCO have filed the present application for modification of the stay order.2. In the application and in the arguments by Shri V. Sridharan a number of points urged at the time of arguments on the stay application have be...

National Organic Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT917Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal, whether the provisions of Section 11D of the Act would apply with regard to amounts mentioned in the invoices issued by the appellant, has already been considered by the Tribunal in appeal E/695/94. In that decision, the Tribunal noted that the issue arose because of the fact that in the annexure to the price list that the appellant filed before the department had claimed as deduction some amount described as "duty on PMA." It noted that the appellant explained that this was the description to show that this was in fact not duty which was specified in the invoices issued to the buyer of its goods and that this amount was not represented as duty on such invoices and was not collected from the buyers and allowed the assessee's appeal.2. The Commissioner's order impugned in this appeal, relates to demand made on an identical issue for a later period. The Commissioner's order for an earlier period was set aside on appeal by the Tribunal, i...

White Cliff Tea Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT378Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Dispute in this appeal is of the classification of two products, viz., Popular Tea Mixture (PTM) and Premium Tea Recipe (PTR). The composition of the product was similar. The PTM contained 70% "tea" and the balance consisted of jaggery, chicory and tapioca. The PTR contained 70% tea and in addition to tapioca, chicory and jaggery, contained honey and cashew nuts also. The classification of PTM was claimed under Chapter 9, sub-heading 0902 which was accepted by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide communication dated 10-1-1997. On 18-9-1998, the jurisdictional Superintendent classified the same product under sub-heading 0902. The other product PTR was also classified under the same heading by the jurisdictional Superintendent on 24-5-1999. The goods were accordingly being cleared on payment of duty under these headings. The packages containing the products described the contents as "tea". Similar products were got manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., f...

Central Bank of India Vs. Apple Finance Limited and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC233

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Bank namely Central Bank of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on the application made by the respondents dated 19.7.2002 (Exhibit 23) inter alia seeking modification of the earlier order dated 9.7.2002 (Exhibit 16).2. The earlier order dated 9.7.2002 was passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the application made by the Bank and injunction as prayed in terms of prayer Clause (a) was granted. This order was passed after perusing valuation report. It also appears that at the time of hearing of this application, none was present on behalf of the defendants (the respondents herein). Prayer Clause (a) of the said application reads as follows: "(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the application, the defendant No. 1 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Tribunal from in any manner alienating, part...

Pramod S/O Nilkanth Jivtode, Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1164

1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellants against the judgment and order dated 21.2.1990, whereby the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Initially, another eight accused along with the present appellants were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. However, the other eight accused have been acquitted of the offences charged and there is no appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal.2.The prosecution case in nut shell can be summarized as follows :All the appellants as well as other co-accused were residents of village Wagholi. The deceased Rajaram Jyotiram Gote was also resident of the same village. On 4.8.1985 there was some programme of music called Powada in the village. All the accused were present in the said programme. There was a pole having electric bulb at the corner of the shop of Dada Kh...

Rasika W/O Krishnadas Tulsidas and ors. Vs. Mount Mary Vaikunta Co-op. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR864; 2003(2)MhLj420

V.C. Daga, J.1. The source of this appeal is the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay dated 22nd December, 1997 in Execution Application No. 696 of 1994 arising out of judgment and decree passed in Short Cause Suit No. 1548 of 1989, whereby the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (original defendant Nos. 1 to 8) were directed to execute necessary conveyance within three months from the date of the said impugned order, failing which, the Registrar of the City Civil Court was directed to execute the required conveyance in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein (the original plaintiff/decree holder). THE FACTS 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: The original plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) Mount Mary Vaikunta Cooperative Housing Society Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff society' for short) had filed a Short Cause Suit bearing No. 1548 of 1989 against ten defendants i.e. present appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 2 to 8. Al...

Rajendrasinhji Institute Vs. Maharashtra Labour Union and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003(97)FLR232]; 2003(2)MhLj449

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the orders of the labour Court in Reference (ULP) No. 4 of 1993 and of the Industrial Court in Revision Application No. 74 of 1993. The main contention involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is an 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the appropriate government is the State Government or the Central Government.2. The controversy in this petition arose since the services of one A. R. Radhakrishna were terminated on 23-4-1993 by the Petitioner (hereinafter called as 'the RSI'). The members of Respondent No. 1 Union remained absent from duty on the next day. The RSI locked out the civilian employees who were represented by the Respondent-Union. The respondent-union, therefore, filed Reference (ULP) No. 4 of 1993 under Section 25 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU and PULP Act')...

Precious Gas Service and anr. Vs. Chairman, Goods Transport Labour Boa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)IILLJ398Bom

1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Ms. Desai, learned counsel waives service for respondent No. 1, Mr. Dixit, learned counsel waives service for respondent No. 2, Ms. Telang, learned counsel waives service for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Topkar, learned counsel waives service for respondent No. 4.3. By consent of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respective respondents, rule is heard finally at this stage.4. The issue raised in the writ petition pertains to whether the petitioners are liable to get registered under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and/or under the scheme framed therein. Section 5 of the Act of 1969 reads thus:'5. If any question arises whether any scheme applies to any class of unprotected workers or employers, the matter shall be 1 referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government on the question, which shall be taken after ...