Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

K.B.H.B. Ahmed Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(186)ELT78Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants has been penalized Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 and as amount of Indian Currency of Rs. 1.55 lakhs found at his residence has been confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act 1962 as sale proceeds of smuggled gold. "The Officers recovered contraband Gold from the ships cabin accepted and used by E. Abdul Rehman along with other crew member. The gold was found concealed in the back seat of the sofa in the cabin and was not declared in the crew property test. On the statement of Shri E. Abdul Rehman a seaman, that major part of the gold 150 biscuits under regular was meant to be delivered to one Hussain (later identified as the appellant herein) whose residential premise location and description was given in great details for which he was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per biscuits and he had made such deliveries to the Hussain house earlier to Hussain. The search of the appellants residence resulted in recovering of Rs. 1,55 lakh in Ind...

Amit Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(186)ELT65Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide order No. C-I/2402/WZB/2003 dated 23.10.2003, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs towards duty within a period of eight weeks.2. When the matter came up for ascertaining compliance on 3.12.2003, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that they have deposited an amount of Rs. 1 lakh in cash and the balance Rs. 10 lakhs has been debited from their modvat account. It was pointed out to the learned advocate that the only dispute in the present appeal as recorded in paragraph 4 of the stay order is that during the period of forfeiture, the appellant was required to discharge duty through PLA without availing of the benefit of deemed credit. As such in the light of the above prima facie findings arrived at by the Tribunal, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs. As such debit of the said duty again from the modvat credit account cannot be accepted to be compliance with the Tribunal's stay order. The learned advoca...

Praga Tools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, we find that vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, as barred by limitation inasmuch as the same was filed after a period of seven months and 16 days from the prescribed time limit of three months. She has observed that there is no plausible explanation for late filing of the appeal. 'We find that the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maithan Ceramic Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur 2002 (145) ELT 394 has held that when the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner (Appeals), the order passed by the adjudicating authority does not merge with the appellate order and the Tribunal cannot consider the appeal on merits filed against the said order. The Customs authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act. Inasmuch as the law only empow...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Elecoat Paints Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute in this case relates to eligibility of modvat credit in relation to invoices which are not pre-authenticated and also credit taken without submission of the duplicate copy of the invoices. The Commissioner (appeals) has allowed the credit on the ground that non authentication is a curable defect, but there is no finding that the defect has indeed been cured. Secondly, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that the Modvat credit can not be denied in the absence of duplicate copy and he has relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sharangpur Engg. Works v. CCE., Meerut - 1998 (102) ELT 380 (Tribunal). The learned J.D.R. states that the said decision of the Tribunal was rendered by a Single Member Bench and that subsequently, the large Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (117) ELT 571 (Tribunal) has held as follows:- "Understanding the provision contained in the Rules, t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ujagar Textile Inds. (P) Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the appeals filed by the Revenue are being taken up together for disposal as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which she has dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondents by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 23.11.1990.2. Shri Uma Shankar, learned J.D.R. appearing for the Revenue submits that the first respondents M/s. Ujagar Textile Inds. P. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of / processing of man made fabrics falling under Chapter 54 & 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 25.5.1990 one tempo belonging to the said appellants was intercepted and was found to be loaded with the processed man made fabrics. The documents accompanying the said consignment were doubted by the officers and as such to verify the correctness of the same, the tempo was brought to the factory. On verification it was found that the tempo was loaded with excess quantity of fabrics than shown in the excise docume...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Yark Prints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(186)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents are processors of man-made fabrics. They filed a refund claim for the accumulated credit lying as balance, as they would not and could not use the same on revering to Compounded levy scheme.The same was rejected. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund after holding - "5. I find that the appellants were taking the modvat credit when they were receiving the processed fabrics from other processors on payment of duty, they were then further processing these fabrics and clearing the same for exports under bond. The refund in the present case has arisen on account of change in method of central excise levy by the legislature. Now, the central excise duty is to be paid by the textile processors as per Section 3A i.e. compound levy scheme from 16.12.98. The present refund claim is covered by the provisions of Rule 57F(13). It is provided in this rule that where any inputs are used in the final products which are cleared for export under bond or used in the intermediate p...

Al Heena Enterprises, Farooq Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In view of the fact that the ladies garments confiscated by the Commissioner with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine are still in the custody of the Customs, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of penalties imposed upon all the appellants and proceed to dispose of the appeals with the consent of both the sides.2. Learned advocate, Shri H.R. Shetty appearing for all me appellants, does not dispute the findings of the Commissioner as regards overvaluation of the ladies garments meant for export. He prays for reduction of the redemption fine and penalties imposed upon the various persons. In respect of Shri Hitesh Amritlal Parmar upon whom penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed, learned advocate submits that he is only a poor employee of CHA and has not played any role in abetting the offence committed by the exporter, M/s. Al Heena Enterprises. After hearing the learned SDR, we uphold the order of confiscation of the ladies garmen...

Grindwell Norton Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Assistant Commissione ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Bom)530; [2004]267ITR673(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged two notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 relating to the asst. yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98.3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of various abrasives.In the returns of the income filed for the respective assessment years, the petitioner had claimed relief under Sections 80-I and 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'). During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices under Section 143(2) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to give further particulars regarding the claim filed under Sections 80-I and 80-IA of the said Act. The assessee from time to time furnished the particulars and in the note relating to bond plant (p. 65 of the petition), it was submitted that the assessee had starte...

Atmaram G. Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR397; 2004(3)BomCR56; 2004(2)MhLj729

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. A retired teacher has approached this Court for grant of pension as the Authorities have refused to grant the same despite being aware of his illness and old-age.2. The petitioner prays that the order dated 12-8-1994 be set aside and this Court should declare that the petitioner is entitled to invalid pension from 1-3-1993. The petitioner prays for further direction to the first respondent to grant this pension to the petitioner from the aforesaid date.3. The petitioner is a retired teacher from G. K. Gokhale College, Kolhapur affiliated to Shivaji University. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed as a Teacher/Instructor of Physical training from 20-6-1958 to 28-2-1973 at the said college. He retired from service being physically incapable to continue the same. The details of the service rendered by the petitioner from the year 1948 as instructor at various schools/colleges have been set out at Page 3 Para 3 of the Petition.4. It is the case of ...

Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Zaheer Khan and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR384; 2004(2)BomCR47; (2006)5CompLJ271(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to the disputes between the parties are briefly stated below.3. The petitioner No. 1 is an Advertising Agency and so is the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 is a cricketer who has acquired a celebrity status. On 1st November, 2000, the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 entered into a contract titled as 'Promotion Agreement' which was valid initially for a period of three years commencing on 30th October, 2000 and expiring on 29th October, 2003. Under the contract, the respondent No. 1 retained services of the petitioner and appointed him as a sole and exclusive agent to manage market and render various consultancy services and other activities set out in Annexure A to the agreement. Clause No. 31 of the agreement provides for negotiation atleast 60 days prior to the expiry of the terms of the...