Mumbai Court September 2002 Judgments

Bhavani Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of internal combustion engines. It availed of the exemption contained in notification 112/88, which exempts from payment of duty component parts of such engines intended for the manufacture of engines, who received such parts without payment of duty. Notification 112/88 was rescinded on 1.3.1994.This was followed by a notice demanding duty on quantities of the parts of the engines which had been received without payment of duty and were lying in the appellant's stock on 1.3.1994. Adjudicating on this notice, the Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and requests decision on its written submission. It is contended therein that if the duty is required to be paid on the parts in question, the appellant is entitled to modvat credit.3. In fact, in his order disposing of the appeal, filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) ha...

Ranjana Tukaram Sayre Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR774; 2003(2)BomCR277; 2003(1)MhLj14

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing fortwith.2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 20-8-2002, passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Konkan Division, Thane ('the Scrutiny Committee' for short) invalidating the caste certificate dated 31-1-1997, issued to the petitioner, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhiwandi, certifying that she belongs to Warli, Scheduled Tribe.3. The petitioner's case is that she is 'Agri' by birth. In the year 1987, she got married to one Tukaram Balu Sayre who belongs to Warli Community. Warli Community is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order 1950 ('the said Order' for short). Agri Community is not declared a Scheduled Tribe thereunder. On the basis of her marriage, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhiwandi, issued the aforementioned certificate stating that the petitioner, her husband and their p...

Mangala P. Nagargoje and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR579; 2003(2)BomCR754; (2003)2BOMLR387; 2003(1)MhLj264

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. The petitioners herein are female workers known as Anganwadi Sevikas. They are questioning the promotion of respondent Nos. 8 to 25 to the posts of supervisors in the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme floated by the Union of India and which is implemented by the concerned Zilla Parishads under the supervision of State of Maharashtra. It is the case of the petitioners that they were selected to the very posts to which these respondents were selected, the respondent Nos. 8 to 25 were in facts not eligible for being considered to these posts, yet due to their wrongful selection, they were shown at higher positions in the select list and were issued the appointment orders which should have been issued to the petitioners. 2. Mr. Dharmadhikari and Mr. Pol appear for the petitioners. Mr. Jadhav, AGP, appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, Mr. Mehere for respondent No. 6 and Mr. Patil for respondent Nos. 8 to 25 except No. 11. 3. As noted above, there is a sch...

Sajid a Pana MoinuddIn Shaikh Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)544; (2003)1BOMLR479; 2003(1)MhLj474

D.G. Karnik, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 30th March, 2002 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai who is the first respondent herein and confirmed by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).2. The facts leading to the passing of the detention order may briefly be stated thus:On 12th January, 2002 at about 11.30 a.m. one Ms. N (full name is not disclosed in this judgment to protect the identity of the victim) whom the petitioner knew since long was passing along Gurunanak Road, Bandra, Mumbai when the petitioner made her to accompany him. Ms. N told that she was going to the college and initially declined to accompany him but, subsequently on insistence of the petitioner, she accompanied him in an autorickshaw. The autorickshaw took a ...

Ashik Woolens Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT211Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 40,45,208.37 confirmed as duty and Rs. 10,000/- imposed as penalty, it appeared that for the reasons stated below, the appeal itself could be disposed off. Both sides agreeing this was done.3. The appellants had failed to submit their monthly returns in the form RT-12 from January, 1995. In 1997 show cause notice was issued and in adjudication a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed for failure to file the returns. The order also took note of the fact that such returns for the period December, 1996 to July, 1997 had been filed in August, 1997. Another show cause notice was issued on 13-7-1997 alleging that for late filing of the RT-12 returns for the period December, 1997 to July, 1997 the assessees were liable to be penalised.The show cause notice mentioned that as against the total credit of Rs. 28,80,836/- available the credit debited was up to 68,78,198/-.However, the show cause notice mentioned the figure o...

Maharashtra Metal Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT399Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the appellant can be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for the reason that the raw material, namely, plain galvanized CRC sheets used by them in the process of corrugation bears the brand name of manufacturer of CRC sheets.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice a decision of this Tribunal in Vimal Printery v. CCE, Vadodara - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 980 (Tribunal) wherein the similar issue considered and held in favour of the assessee. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the above decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in 2000 (115) E.L.T. A222 (S.C.). On the other hand, the learned DR, relied on a decision of the Tribunal in Priti Electronics (P) Ltd v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 584 (Tri. - Del.) wherein it has been held that since radio cassette recorders were assembled and housed in imported cabinets bearing foreign brand name, th...

Maharasthra Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT690Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the appellant can be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE. for the reason that the raw material, namely, plain galvanized CRC sheets used by them in the process of corrugation bears the brand name of manufacturer of CRC sheets.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice a decision of this Tribunal in Vimal Printery v. CCE, Vndodara - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 980 (Tribunal) wherein the similar issue considered and held in favour of the assessee. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the above decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in 2000 (115) E.L.T. A222 (S.C.). On the other hand, the learned DR relied on a decision of the Tribunal in Priti Electronics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 584 (Tri. - Del.) wherein it has been held that since radio cassette recorders were assembled and housed in imported cabinets bearing foreign brand name...

Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT333Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 18/73,058/- we find that the issue being capable of being decided at this stage, the appeal itself could be disposed off. Both sides agreeing, this was done.2. The facts of this case deserve to be noted. The appellants had received certain inputs during the period November, 1991 to March, 1994 without duty having been paid thereupon. On the dutiability of the inputs there was a dispute. This was later settled requiring the manufacturers to pay duty. The supplier-manufacturer paid duty sometime in 1996 and requested for a certificate under the then Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This rule made for the variation in credit.Where any additional quantum of duty was later paid by the manufacturer such a certificate would enable the receiver-manufacturer to claim increment in credit. Conversely, where any refund had been obtained by the supplier-manufacturer the certificate would make ...

G.H. Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT540Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the above stay application came up for hearing, both sides agreed that the appeal itself may be taken up for consideration, Accordingly, appeal itself was heard on merits after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.2. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has demanded Rs. 1,18,179/- as customs duty short-levied on Steel Melting scrap imported by the appellants. Duty demand consists of Rs. 1,12,977/- in respect of Special Additional duty and Rs. 5,202/- on goods found in excess. The order has also demanded interest and imposed penalty equivalent to the duty demand.3. The ground for making demand of special additional duty is that the appellants had sold the imported melting scrap to buyers located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of goods. The duty demand in respect of the excess goods is on the ground that appellants had cleared 1.68 MTs of melting scrap over and above the declared quantity.4. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for ...

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1143Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 9,63,607/- it appeared that the issue being settled, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done.2. The appellants manufacture yarn as well as fabrics. They had secured permission for payment of duty on yarn at the time of clearance of their fabrics in terms of Rule 49A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. By a separate notification exemption was available for yarn used in captive consumption of fabrics. In spite of an earlier permission taken and in spite of the notification, the appellants paid the duty on the yarn, issued invoices in their own name; used the credit of duty so paid on the yarn at the time of clearance of final goods show cause notice was issued alleging that the Modvat credit taken on invoices issued by the manufacturer themselves was not covered under Rule 57G. Therefore the credit was disallowed. The Assistant, Commissioner in his findings cited the Supre...