Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments

Balmer Lawrie Van Leer Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(105)LC970Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant filed an into bill of entry in respect of a consignment of cold roll steel sheets imported by it. The department noted that the value declared of these goods of US $345 per ton C&F after adding the insurance premium of Rs. 4465 paid for the goods, the C&F value of the consignment was lower than $392. In terms of a public notice issued by the Directorate of Foreign Trade that the import of steel sheets of the value less than a value of $ 392 per ton was restricted, the import of the goods required licence. Notice was therefore issued proposing confiscation of the goods as imported without authority of law, penalty was also proposed. Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner held the goods liable to confiscation and ordered them to be redeemed on payment of fine and imposed penalty on the importer. Hence this appeal.2. The counsel for the appellant relies upon the provision of paragraph 4.15 and 7.17 of the export and import policy. These are reproduced below...

Gebbs India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC781Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to importation, without a licence, of components of video display units of computers that the appellant makes. In the two orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held that they required a licence and, in the absence of such a licence, ordered their confiscation with an option to redeem them on payment of fine.2. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that what was imported was components of these video display units of computers and not complete units. Each of the components was permitted to be imported without a licence. What was prohibited was only a complete display unit. The importation was therefore' in order. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in UO1 v. Tarachand Gupta -1983 (13) E.L.T. 1456. The answer that the Departmental Representative offers is that the components were in such quantity and such proportion so as to constitute parts of display units. He relies...

Minex Mettallurgical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT306Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In Final Order No. C-I/542-43/WZB/2002, dated 14-2-2002 [2002 (150) E.L.T. 88 (Tri.)] the Tribunal had upheld the finding in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the water tank installed in the premises did not deserve to be accepted as capital goods inasmuch as the water stored therein did not participate in the process of manufacture. This application is for rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of this order. Reliance is placed on a chart which shows that the water is used to maintain the temperature of cooling coils in the furnace.2. In the original, and the first appeal proceedings, nothing was shown to establish that the water storage tank participated in the process of manufacture of goods. The chart forming part of the appeal memorandum before the Tribunal also did not indicate the use to which water stored in this tank was put. In the application for rectification now by way of complex chart, it is attempted to show that this water is used for controlling...

Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR431; 2003(154)ELT19(Bom)

J.F. Devadhar, J. 1. In this petition, the Petitioners have challenged the show cause notice dated 28th September, 2001 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Panvel Division, wherein the Petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why penal action be nottaken against them for availing Cenvat Credit of Rs. 21,74,227.00 in contravention of Rule 57AF(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('Excise Rules' for short). The Petitioners had availed the Cenvat Credit for the aforesaid amount pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division 'E', Mumbai on 22nd September, 2000 and, therefore, it is the contention of the Petitioners that without challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai dated 22nd September, 2000 it is not open to initiate the penal proceedings against the Petitioners and, therefore, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. Ordinarily, we would not have taken up the ...

Mmtc Ltd. Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR615

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. The respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. In these proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the validity of an Award dated 27th June, 2001 is sought to be called in question. By the view taken by a majority consisting of two learned Arbitrators (Mr. Justice M.H. Kania and Mr. Justice M.N. Chandurkar) the claim preferred by the respondent has been allowed to the extent as would be set out hereinafter. One of the learned Arbitrators (Mr. Justice S.N. Sapra) has delivered a dissenting Award. The Facts. The agreement between the parties: 3. An agreement was entered into on 14th December, 1993 between the petitioner and the respondent by which the respondent appointed the petitioner as a consignment agent for the storage, handling and marketing of continuous cast copper rods manufactured by the respondent. The agreement provided, in so far as is material, that the petitioner will sto...

Usman Gani Yakubali Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)375; 2003CriLJ1884

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. One Mahmood Yakubali Umer is the detenu in this case. Petition is filed by his brother. The detenu has been detained under the COFEPOSA Act by detention order dated 29-1-2002 passed by detaining authority Smt. Ranjana Sinha of the Government of Maharashtra. The Grounds of detention of the even date were served upon the detenu.2. We heard Mrs. Ansari for the detenu at length so also learned APP for the respondents. In the petition number of grounds have been raised. However, Mrs. Ansari urged that Grounds in the petition viz. (v); (x); (ix) (a) & (b; (xii); (xiii); (xiv) and Ground No. (i) should only be considered for quashing the detention order. We are, therefore, considering those grounds only.3. First Ground is about the delay in issuing the detention order because incident of smuggling gold coins had taken place on 22-4-2001. Investigation was completed on that day itself and the detention order was passed on 29-1-2002. Therefore, according to Mrs. Ansari, th...

N.W. Exports Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Mumbai)294

ORDERB.L. Chrober, A.M.: The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee reads as under :The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as 'Assistant Commissioner') to the 'Book Profits' under section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') towards provision of Rs. 1,00,200 for diminution in value of investments and Rs. 8,08,434 on account of doubtful loans and advances. The Commissioner (Appeals) totally misdirected himself in applying clause (b) of Explanation to sub-section (1A) of section 115J of the Act and holding that the said provisions are actually reserves and could only be appropriated after the profits were ascertained. The Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in. wrongly interpreting the Supreme Court decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) as regards the distinction between 'provision' and 'reserves'.'2. The assess...

Western Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration is the eligibility to the exemption contained in notification 182/87 as amended to the goods manufactured in the workshop of the appellant. The notification exempts from duty goods "which are manufactured in workshops, situated within the precincts of mines and also are intended for use in the repair or maintenance of machinery used in mines." In the orders impugned in the appeals. The Commissioner has denied the exemption to the goods under consideration on his view that the workshop in which they were manufactured was located at six kilometers away from the mine and hence not within its precincts.2. The counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the workshop in question is located six kilometers away from the perimeter of the mine.He contends however that the word "precincts of mine" has been interpreted by the Calcutta bench of the Tribunal in its decision Central Coalfields Limited v. CCE 1997 (23) RLT 269 to exclude a workshop located 50 kil...

Govind Vishwanath Kulkarni Vs. the Yogeshwari Education Society and th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR197; 2003(1)MhLj210

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Both the second appeals challengejudgment and order passed by the learned IIAdditional District Judge, Beed in Regular CivilAppeal No.168 of 1984 of his file and hence boththe appeals are being disposed of by this commonjudgment.It will be convenient to refer to theparties by their original status as plaintiff ordefendant/s, as before the trial Court.2. The litigation began with RegularCivil Suit No.65 of 1978 filed by teacher in thecourt of II Joint Civil Judge J.D. Ambajogai,District Beed. The Yogeshwari Education Society,Ambajogai, District Beed, its Secretary and thePrincipal, Swami Ramanand Teerth Mahavidhyalay,Ambajogai were defendants.Plaintiff was appointed as a Teacherby defendant No.1 on 15.6.1966 and was dulyconfirmed with effect from 15.6.1988. He workedas a Lecturer in English in Yogeshwari Collegerun by the society. He was head of the departmentat the said college from 1971 to 1976. In August1976, society issued an order transferringplaintiff to S.R.T...

Miss Fathema HussaIn Sayed, a Minor Through Her Father Vs. Bharat Educ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom75; 2002(4)ALLMR65; 2002(6)BomCR684

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. Nusrat Shah, learned counselfor petitioner and Mr. K.P. Ravi, learnedcounsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.2. The petitioner Ms. Fathema Hussain Sayed(minor) is a student of standard VI in KarthikaEnglish School (respondent No.2). It is her casethat she was asked by the Principal of the Schoolto not to attend class from 28.11.2001 if shewore the head scarf. This direction given by thePrincipal to the petitioner on 28.11.2001 isunder challenge in this writ petition. Thepetitioner says that she hails from Muslim familyand follows the Islam religion and since the HolyQuran provides that a female child after 9 yearsof age should cover her head by scarf, shestarted wearing head-scarf from June, 2001.According to her, head-scarf does not violate thedress code or the discipline of respondent No.2school and therefore, the direction given by thePrincipal on 28.11.2001 is violative ofpetitioners fundamental right of freedom ofconscience and professing, propagating andprac...