Mumbai Court April 2002 Judgments

Metal Extruders India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC327Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III, made in Order-in-Original No. 210/96 whereunder he confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 4,362.27 and confiscated the goods worth 16927.060 kgs. of brass rods, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as well as a fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs.2. The facts of the case are the appellant is a manufacturer of brass rods. On 7-12-1990 a quantity of 6882.100 kgs. of the goods were carried in a truck was seized by the officers on the ground that there was no duty paying documents. The driver of the truck produced four Gate Pass Nos. 648 to 651 of the quantity of 3251 kgs. Shortly thereafter i.e. about 15 minutes or so he produced other two GPIs for 3631 kgs. No duty was demanded. The officers also found that a quantity of 1044 kgs was found lying in the factory premises without being accounted for in the sense it was entered into RG 1 register. A show cause notice was issued proposing to confiscate the s...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Caprihans India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT71Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the impugned order, the appeal was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) holding as follows :- "Their plea that the demand is hit by limitation is one which has to be accepted in view of the fact that there is no suppression, fraud, mis-statement etc. in the show cause notice. In the absence of any such allegation it would be improper to invoke the longer period of five years. The demand is for the period January, 1980, and the show cause notice has been issued on 10-1-1985." 2. The learned DR arguing for the appellant would stress the word "misuse" used in the show cause notice. When confronted with a query from the Bench, he accepted that the word "misuse" is not found in any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules enabling the department to issue notice beyond the period of six months. Hence the appeal of the department is devoid of merits and is dismissed....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Radha Textiles and Radha Yarn P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Radha Textile and Radha Yarn Pvt. Ltd. each imported a consignment stated to be pre-mutilated woollen rags. Examination of the consignment showed that the consignment consisted to the extent of 85% of used serviceable garments, the remaining 15% being rags. Notice was issued proposing enhancement of the value and confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) and (m) of Section 11 and penalty. The Joint Commissioner passed orders enhancing value ordering confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine and imposed penalty on the importers. His order was set aside on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the matter to the Joint Commissioner on the ground that there was failure of the principles of natural justice. On fresh adjudication, the Joint Commissioner in each case ordered confiscation and imposed penalty. The importers appealed against this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) on his view that the misdeclaration of goods did not amount to misde...

Smoke Affected Residents Forum Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR479; (2003)1BOMLR227; 2003(1)MhLj120

S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. In all the above Notices of Motion except Notice of Motion No.128 of 2002 and Writ Petition No.838 of 2002, the basic challenge is to the order passed by this Court on 17th October, 2001 in Writ Petition No.1762 of 1999 wherein there is a direction directing that w.e.f. 1st March, 2002 all taxis over the age of 15 years shall be phased out unless converted to run on CNG / LPG by that date. In the said order it is also provided that all taxis of Premier 137-D Model shall also be phased out by this date i.e. 1st March, 2002 unless converted to run on CNG / LPG. 2. Notice of Motion No.128 of 2002 filed on behalf of the Maharashtra Rickshaw Chalak Sena challenges the aforesaid order 17th October, 2001 with regard to directions that w.e.f. 1st March, 2002 all three wheelers over the age of 10 years shall be phased out unless converted to run on CNG/LPG by that date. A similar challenge is made with regard to three wheelers in Writ Petition No.832 of 2002. 3. We have ...

Kiran Shailen Jhaveri Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)724; 2003(85)ECC600; 2002(3)MhLj817

A.B. Palkar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 9-10-2000 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai in Criminal Case No. 349/W/1997 Ex. L rejecting her application for discharge.2. Petitioner claims for discharge by quashing and setting aside the aforesaid prosecution and especially order of taking cognizance on following facts and material.3. Petitioner got married to one Mr. Shailen Jhaveri who wanted to start business with his friend by name Mr. Parag Trivedi. The marriage took place in December, 1985 and thereafter petitioner's husband entered into partnership business in the firm name M/s Kini Corporation. Petitioner was also one of the partner and it is not disputed before me that she was a sleeping partner and as such was not taking any active part in the business of the firm. The firm started business of exporting diamonds to different parties. One Mr. Jayantilal Jhaveri who was Manager of the firm siphoned of certain monies belonging to the fir...

Nilkanth Narayanrao Belkhude Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR437

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner had filed the Complaint against respondent No. 2 in the Industrial Court, Nagpur being complaint (U.L.P.A.) No. 326/96. The complaint was fixed for hearing on 25-7-98, 30-7-98 and 18-9-98 and then lastly the date was adjourned to 14-10-98. The petitioner was present on 25-7-98, 30-7-98 and on 18-9-98 but was absent on 14-10-98 when the matter was adjourned to 5-11-98. It is the case of the petitioner that he was suffering from Typhoid fever from 2-11-98 to 11-11-98, therefore he could not attend the Court on 5-11-98 when the matter was fixed for evidence. On 5-11-98 though the petitioner was absent, an application was made by his Advocate for adjournment but the Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur rejected the application for adjournment and dismissed the case for default. 3. The petitioner applied for restoration of the complaint on 17-11-98 and enclosed a copy of Medical Certificate of a Doctor indic...

Jagdish Prasad Gyaniram Agarwal Vs. Uttamchand Alias Mohanlal Deepchan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR535

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service.2. Heard forthwith. The petitioner herein was the tenant of the respondent-landlord. The suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner on various grounds as available under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The trial Court framed issues for determination and by an order dated 12-8-1997, decreed the suit in so far as the grounds of change of user, alternative accommodation as also reasonable and bona fide requirement and held that greater hardship will be caused to the respondent landlord than to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 995 of 1997. The respondent herein filed cross-objections in so far as rejection of the ground of arrears of rent. The appeal and cross-objections were heard together and by an order dated 21-12-2001 the appeal preferred by the petitioner was di...

Shaikh ShahbuddIn Balabhai Vs. Syed Hasan S/O Babumiyan Deceased Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR104; (2002)104BOMLR818

D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing Municipal House No. 3883 bearing City Survey 3856-B situated at Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the said property). The original respondent No. 1 was a tenant in respect of the premises consisting of 2 khans situated on the ground floor of the said property (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises). The original respondent No. 1 died during the pendency of this Writ Petition and his heirs were brought on record. Despite service of the notice, the legal representatives of the respondent No. 1 have not appeared in this Court. Respondent No. 2 is the alleged sub-tenant.2. The petitioner filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 501/1976 against the respondents for possession of the suit premises on several grounds under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, Bombay Rent Act) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. The Trial Court decree...

Saraswat Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)STR322

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 51,600/- imposed under Section 76 of the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed in terms of Section 77 arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. It is the contention of the applicants that in terms of Section 76 the penalty amount cannot exceed the amount of service tax. The applicants do not contest the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77. The alternative argument advanced by the applicant is that the levy of service tax on management consultancy which the applicants were carrying on was introduced only in 1998 and therefore the penalty is prima facie not warranted as the law was in nascent stage.4. We see prima facie substance in the contention of the applicants that the penalty amount cannot exceed the amount of service tax, which was not paid. We, however, do not see much substance in the plea that no penalty is at all warranted. We therefore direct the...

Gujarat TexspIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are an EOU unit. They are manufacturers of Dress materials of various kinds. They were issued a Show Cause Notice as it was found that they had disposed of certain goods viz. Waste yarn and substandard fabrics in the DTA in contravention of the rules and discharge of appropriate duty even though this was done after obtaining a permission of Development Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone. It was alleged that the EOU had availed full exemption of duty of the raw material procured by them. This raw material was used in the manufacture and clearance of finished goods and on ineligible, DTA sale entitlement against deemed export, which they were not entitled. They were therefore not eligible to the benefit of exemption notification.Therefore they had contrivented provisions of Customs Act 1962, Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and duty was demanded be recovered from them on such goods illicitly removed under the guise of DTA sales. They were also asked to show ca...