Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Burns Philip India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT375Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the applicants herein on the ground inter alia that the goods in question were liable to confiscation as the applicants had not disclosed to the Department the product in dispute viz. Egg Free Cake Mix was being sold in unit containers for the purpose of determination of classification under CET sub-heading 1901.19 as contrasted with the claim of the appellants that the goods fall for classification under CET 1905.90 attracting Nil rate of duty.2. We have heard both sides. We note that in the classification declaration, the assessees have shown the unit of assessment and therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that there was no disclosure to the Department of the fact of the product being sold in the containers. The other plea including the plea that a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was already imposed in respect of the same goods, and therefore, there is no warrant for imposition of fresh penalty wi...

Mohit Steel Inds. Ltd., Karthik Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT824Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty (details of which are to be found in the annexure to this order), arise out of three separate adjudication orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The demands have been confirmed, by holding that during the period in dispute, there was prohibition on the availment of the benefit of abatement, if the factory had been closed for a particular period (more than 7days) The Ld. Counsel Shri M.H.Patil draws our attention to Rule 96ZO(3), which in the month of August 1997 contained such prohibition, and to the Rule as it stood after 1.9.97 when there was only a prohibition on the availment of the benefit of Sub-section (4) to Section 3A, and there was no prohibition on availment of the benefit of abatement provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 3A.Therefore they submits that the entire demand stands upon an erroneous understanding of the rule as it stood during the period for dispute in all the cases.2. Ld. DR reiterated t...

Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Limited Vs. Dabhol Power Com ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom38a; [2003]117CompCas651(Bom); [2004]50SCL440(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Andhyarujina for the Appellants and Mr. Sibal for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.2. We have gone through the impugned order. Mr. Andhyarujina submits that it is erroneous on facts as well as on law. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, submits that the impugned order is primarily on facts and correct one. We are, however, of the view that there are important questions of law which are as well involved in this matter.3. Mr. Sibal has raised a question with respect to maintainability of this Appeal.4. This Appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act seeks to challenge the order dated 2nd September 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge under Section 10-F of the Companies Act in an appeal arising out of the order passed by the Company Law Board and petition initiated by the Appellants under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.5. Mr. Sibal and Mr. Dwarkadas, learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents, submit that Sectio...

Shri Harish Khetri Dip @ Depak Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Po ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004BomCR(Cri)344

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. The petitioner is detained under an order of detention dated 29/11/2002 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the MPDA Act). The order of detention, grounds of detention and the material in support thereof were served on the petitioner on or about 29/11/2002. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention.2. Though several grounds have been agitated in the petition, Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed only one ground viz. that the translation of injury certificate of Santosh R. Jadhav, which is supplied to the petitioner is incomplete and wrongly translated. It is stated that the grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority had referred to and relied on a criminal case being C.R. No. 136 of 2002. The said case pertains to an...

Smt. Nirabai J. Patil Vs. Narayan D. Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom225; 2004(1)ALLMR657; 2004(3)BomCR226; 2004(1)MhLj1058

A.S. Oka, J.1. By an order dated 16-9-2003 this Court has issued notice for final disposal of this writ petition. An Affidavit of service has been filed by the Petitioners which records that the Respondents have been served with notice of this Petition.2. By this petition, an exception is taken to the order dated 18-8-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kalyan below application Exh-43. By the said application, Petitioners prayed for direction that police aid should be made available for implementation of the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in the said suit. The learned trial judge rejected the said application on two grounds. The learned trial judge held that Application at Exh.28 containing similar prayer has been rejected. The learned Judge also was of the opinion that there was no provision for allowing police aid for execution of interim order.3. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. Mr. Angal for the Petitioner submitted that ...

Panjabrao Sadashiorao Wankhede Vs. Rajeev Agrawal, Secretary, Ministry ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR472; 2004(4)BomCR430; 2004(2)MhLj1047

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Shri Ramesh Darda, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Shri Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for the State.2. This is an application for setting aside the earlier order of this Court by which this Court dropped the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner against the respondent-secretary, Ministry of Cooperation, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya.3. The petitioner had alleged in the contempt proceedings that the respondents are guilty of disobedience of the order of this Court in that the respondent has not complied with the order of this Court dated 3rd September, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 1488/1999 directing the respondent to hear the petitioner and then decide the matter. The contempt with which the respondent was charged for civil contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act. The definition reads as follows :--'2(b) 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process ...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. the Wallace Flour Mills Co. L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR415

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Pursuant to an application by the claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation, being dissatisfied with the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter. Section 4 Notification for acquisition of land was issued on 7th May, 1973. By his Award of 10th March, 1978 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value at the rate of Rs. 140/- per square meter. The Award would disclose that there were also 9 persons claiming compensation as residential tenants and one person as a business tenant. The area of the land acquired admeasured 3477.14 square meters. The entire compensation, apart from some amounts awarded to the tenants, which are meager amounts, have been awarded to the claimants herein. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value as fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by application made under Section 18, has claimed that compensation ought to be ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Boc (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT359Tri(Mum.)bai

1. BOC (India) Ltd. was engaged in the compressing and filling in cylinders medical and industrial grade oxygen and argon. The process was being treated as one of manufacture. The assessee paid duty on the cylinders that it filled with liquefied gas and utilised as credit duty paid on the gases mat it received. Notice issued to it proposed to recover credit taken on quantities of these gases which escaped into the atmosphere during the process of filling in the cylinder on the ground that the goods were not used in the manufacture of the final product. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the liability to reversal of the credit and imposed penalty on the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal against this order on his view that the escaped gases were in the nature of waste and hence to be covered by the provisions of Rule 57D. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The Commissioner(Appeals) has relied upon the unreported decision of the Tribunal, holding in the case of ...

Cut Metal Corpn., R.R. Vijayan and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are being disposed off by this common order as they arise out of same order-in-original.2. The Excise officers calculated the stock of raw materials which should have been available physically in the factory of the assessee at the time of their visit after an interception of a vehicle found carrying laminated sheet stampings. On such calculations of the stocks and comparing the same with the records, the officers came to the conclusion that there was a shortage of raw material of 221 M. T. Show Cause notices were issued to the manufacturer assessee that they had, clandestinely produced final products i. e. laminated stampings, and cleared the same without accounting and/or discharging duties due therein. On this account total duty of Rs. 34,05,852.05/- was required to be confirmed, along with duty of Rs. 4,628/- on goods cleared without the cover of any valid duty paying documents or transport documents found in the vehicle intercepted by the officers. A penalty of Rs...

Salasar Fortune Marketing (i) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are against the same order of the Commissioner by which he has determined the liability to confiscation of 14026.60 Sq.Mtrs. of unglazed tiles covered under bill of entries no. 1175 and 1287 to 1292 under provision of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and has offered redemption of the same with a fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- on the importer M/s. Pet Plastic Ltd., Rs. 7,50,000/- on M/s. Salasar Fortune Marketing (I) Ltd., Rs. 2,00,000/- on Shri Ritesh Vakil, authorized signatory of M/s. Pet Plastics, Rs. 2,00,000/- of Shri Vinod Sharma, Director of M/s. Salasar Fortune Marketing (I) Ltd., the appellants herein.2. After hearing, the Ld. Advocate for the appellants and JDR and considering the issue, it is found that the issue involves the levy of anti dumping duty and custom duty on the imports of the goods made by the unit which is admittedly situated in Special Economic Zone at Kandla. The Ld Advocate dra...