Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Ravi Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT358Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance duty of Rs. 8,94,341/- (out of the total duty demand of Rs. 13,44,341/- a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- already stands paid during the investigation) and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai. The duty has been confirmed on the ground inter alia that the applicants in collusion with Merchant manufacturers for whom they were processing the fabrics on job work basis, had mis-declared the assessable value of the processed fabrics by suppression of the actual cost of grey fabrics.2. We have heard both sides and perused the records and find that the charge of collusion entirely stems from admission of the two merchant manufacturers that the applicants by colluding with them, had instructed them to file incorrect declaration. The argument that the extended period of limitation is not available, prima facie, is not acceptable/ as this is not the stage for us to consider whether the...

Saraswati Repowering Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT258Tri(Mum.)bai

i) Loaded the value by applying Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules and valued the consignment at Rs. 11,13,816/-. (ii) Ordered confiscation of the consignment of old and used diesel engines holding them not to be capital goods and allowed them to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 12 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,75,000/- on goods valued at Rs. 11,13,816/-. a) The loading of valuation is 'not pressed' by the learned Advocate. Appeal on that issue is rejected. i) On Margin of Profit, the Custom Appraising Manual Vol. II, Second Edt. published in 1990 prescribes in Chapter 5, para 5 as - (a) Market enquiries - In terms of Section 125 of the C.A. 62 the adjudication officer may impose a redemption fine on the offending goods not exceeding the market price of the goods confiscated less the duty chargeable thereon. It is therefore, understood that while fixing fine in lieu of confiscation the adjudication officer are guide by the margin of profit on the goods indicated by the assessing...

James Mackintosh and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT88Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are by agents of masters of vessels against two orders of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai ordering confiscation under Clause (f) and (g) of Section 111 of the Act of cargo that was unloaded from the ships.2. The facts briefly are as follows. James Mackintosh & Co. (appeal E/173/97) as an agent of the master of the ship Trade Fast filed a manifest on 2.9.1996 for the ship on its arrival in Mumbai.Subsequently, on 30.9.1996 it filed an application for amendment of the manifest by including in it 6 tonnes of chemical which were on board the ship. P&O (Indian Agencies) P. Ltd. filed on 8.10.1996 an application for including in the manifest filed on 4.10.1996 for the ship Ultra flex Orient two containers of di methyl formamide. Both parties having waived issue of written notice, were heard by the Commissioner who passed orders holding the goods liable to confiscation under Clause (f) and (g) of the Act but permitting them to be redeemed on payment of fine.3. Th...

Jaslok Hospital and Research Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT449Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants had imported certain hospital equipment and availed benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.03.1988 on clearance of the same. The notification granted exemption to equipment imported by Hospitals subject to the conditions therein. One of the conditions was the production of necessary entitlement certificate by the Director General of Health Services. The said certificate was produced. However, proceedings were initiated by the Customs Department proposing to deny the benefit of the notification No. 64/88-Cus on the grounds that the importers had not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the table to the said notification. The appellants contended that they had fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in the notification. They also submitted copies of certificates issued by the Joint Director of the Heath Services, Maharashtra in support of their submission. The appellants also submitted that the notification prescribed a lower rate...

Pushpam Ceramics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT360Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,28,806/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The duty liability is confirmed as a result of holding that the process of conversion of PVA powder into liquid form by the applicants who are job workers for M/s. Peddar & Peddar Tiles Ltd., amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 6 to Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Penalty has been imposed for contravention of the relevant rules.2. We have heard both sides. We do not find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that the extended period of limitation is not applicable on the ground of revenue neutrality, as we find that in this case the entire amount of duty confirmed against the job workers would be available as Modvat credit, not to the job workers themselves, but to M/s. Peddar & Peddar Tiles Ltd. In this situation, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J...

Flexoplast Abrasives (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT387Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In these two cases, the appellants have filed application for condonation of delay. In Appeal No. E/689/98-Bom, the application for COD was filed on 5-3-1998 and in Appeal No. E/98/99-Bom, the application for COD was filed on 12-1-1999. These have been listed today for hearing along with other short matters where the applications have been filed in the month of December, 2002, February, 2003 and July, 2003. While commending the officials responsible for listing the COD applications filed in March, 1998 and January, 1999, it is seen from above that the Registry at Mumbai is not listing short matters chronologically as and when they are filed. Apart from that, as seen from these two cases, applications filed long ago are pending to be listed for several years. This is not the first time that such discrepancies are being noticed on the Bench. Transparency in the functioning of the Tribunal is of utmost importance and the appeals/applications filed earlier have to be listed before the ...

Bachoobhai and Co. and Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Bukhari Trading Co. Ltd., filed two shipping bills for export of onions to Hajipur Trading Co., Dubai. The first shipping bill was filed on 18.9.2001 for export of 150 tons of the goods, which were exported by the ship Al-juniadi. The second shipping bill dated 22.9.2001 was filed on 50 tons contained in 111 bags loaded on board Gulzar-e-nabi.The second craft developed trouble en route and therefore called in distress at Okha in Saurashtra. Examination by the officers of the cargo on board prima facie indicated the presence of a quantity in excess of 50 tons which was manifested. Investigations indicated that the ship earned 62.5 tons of onions. The excess of 12.5 tonnes over the manufactured quantity was in fact left over from the earlier consignment of 150 tons which was covered by the shipping bill on 18.9.2001. This quantity of 12.5 tons did not reach the port in time for loading on board Al junaidi. It was therefore loaded on board the other ship along with the next consignmen...

Sagar Auto Works and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT442Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These seven appeals are being decided by this common order. Even though appellants are different the issue is the same. The goods under import and the respondents are same.2. The appellants had imported consignment of old and used diesel engines, which have been ordered to be confiscated and released after imposition of redemption fine and of loading values as follows : Rs. 9,73,606/-under B/E No. 307, Rs. 9,52,9257-under B/E No. 308, Rs. 8,78,5167-under B/E No. 309 Rs. 9,10,000/-under B/E No. 307, Rs. 8,00,000/- under B/E No. 308, Rs. 7,50,000/- under B/E No. 309 Rs. 1,00,0007-under B/E No. 307, Rs. 80,000/-under B/E No. 308, Rs. 70,000/-under B/E No. 309.Rs. 4,89,000/-under B/E No. 381728.04.1999, Rs. 5,42,000/-under B/E No.382/28.04.1999.Rs. 49,0007-under B/E No. 381/28.04.1999, Rs. 54,0007-under B/E No.382/28.04.1999.5,38,003/-under B/E No. 508, Rs. 5,72,544/-under B/E No. 509, Rs. 5,82,732/-under B/E No. 510, Rs. 6,22,493/-under B/E No. 511.5,38,000/- under B/E No. 508, Rs. 5,...

Shri Mahadeo Sahebrao Jadhav Vs. University of Pune

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR16; 2004(1)BomCR15; 2004(2)MhLj331

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Judgment & Order passed in Appeal No. 20/2002 by the Presiding Officer of the Pune Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Pune dated 4th December, 2002 whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of termination passed by the acting Registrar of the University of Pune, has been dismissed, hence the Petitioner challenges the order of termination dated 3rd September, 2002 passed by the Pune University.2. The brief fats are that the Petitioner herein, prior to joining the Respondent University, had earlier worked with various private colleges affiliated to the Pune University for the period of 7/8 years. Subsequently on 20th June, 1996 the Petitioner joined the services of Pune University in its Finance Department as an Internal Auditor. This appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years. While the Petitioner was working as an Internal Auditor, on 6th May, 1997 an a...

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Through Its Superintending Enginee ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR537

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This application is filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, applicant-original respondent No. 8 in Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000 praying therein to transfer Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000 as well as Writ Petition No. 2923 of 2003 from Nagpur Bench to Principal Bench at Bombay.2. The case of the applicant, as stated in the miscellaneous application, is that it is responded No. 8 in Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000. That petition was filed by Grahak Panchayat, Nagpur, a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, against the State of Maharashtra and others. A complaint made in the said petition by Grahak Panchayat related to load shedding by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. It was Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Central India Power Company was permitted to intervene. Initially, the petitioner was not joined as party respondent. But by an order dated 8th August, 2003, the applicant was added as respondent. A direction was sought against t...