Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Nagpur District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)BC555

K.J. Rohee, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Heard Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs. B. H. Dangre,A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. A. B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3and 4 and Mr. M.V. Samarth, Advocate for respondent No. 5.3. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an off shoot of what is notoriously known as Government Security Scam in the State of Maharashtra.4. It seems that Crime No. 124 of 2002 under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Wardha against the ex-Directors of Wardha District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Wardha (respondent No. 5, including respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for misappropriation of an amount to the tune of Rs. 25 crores by investing the said amount with M/s. Home Trade Limited.5. During investigation the investigating officer issued notice dated 25.11.2002 to the Deputy General Manager, Banking ...

Sharad S/O Marotrao Kolhe Vs. Baldeo Raj S/O Mulkhraj Chhabra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR51; (2004)106BOMLR12

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2. None for the respondent No. 1 though served.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.10.1992 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 178 of 1990 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) on the contentions that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.3. Brief facts are as under:The accident occurred on 26.10.1989 at about 9.00 a.m. in front of Gondawana Wine Shop, Ravi Nagar, Amravati Road, Nagpur. The claimant was going to attend his college on bicycle and at that time the offending truck bearing No. MTG 4200 owned by respondent No. 1 had come from the back side in a high speed. The truck gave dash to the claimant causing him grievous injuries and consequential permanent disablement. The claimant was immediately removed to the hospital where he took medical treatment and thereafter he had fil...

Syndet India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT349Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant inter alia obtained unpacked bars of detergent manufactured by another person, packed the detergent bars by placing them inside the packing of detergent powder that it manufactured and cleared them after paying duty on the packed detergent. It took credit under 57A of the duty paid on the unpacked bars that it received utilising it for payment of duty on the packed bars. The notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of credit that it took on the ground that the packing that it did of the detergent bar was not manufacture.This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Asst. Commissioner that such activity not being manufacture appellant would not have taken credit. 2. We have heard both sides. In its decision in Standard Surfactants Lid. CCE - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 763 a bench of the Tribunal in regard to an identical issue set aside the demand for credit taken on its view expressed in the following words. "There are no ...

Associated Transrail Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT557Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged, as a job worker, in the manufacture of steel structurals. It received raw materials for making such goods from Tata Projects Ltd. The appellant took deemed credit as provided in notification 58/97. The notification declares the duty shall be deemed to have been paid on inputs specified therein at 12% of the price declared by the manufacturer in the invoice accompanying the goods credit of the duty shall be allowed to the manufacturer of the final product. The notification provides that it shall not apply to inputs where the manufacturer of the inputs has not declared in invoice price correctly in the documents. The explanation to the notification defines "invoice price" charged by the inputs accompany the said inputs "the payment of duty made directly by the manufacturer of the final product to the manufacture of the said inputs (by cheque drawn on his own bank or bank draft or banker's cheque. Notices issued to the appellant proposed to deny the credit o...

RollwIn Engineering Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT678Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide the impugned Order, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Excise, Rajkot has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 58,26,784.00 (Rupees fifty-eight lakh twenty-six thousand seven hundred and eighty-four) against the appellants on the findings of clandestine maufacture and removal of their final products during the periods - from 1992-93 to 1996-97. In addition, he has imposed personal penalty of identical amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 8.0 lakh (Rupees eight lakh) under the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has also confiscated the unaccounted goods with an option to the appellant company to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 2.50 lakh(Rupees two lakh fifty thousand).2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ball Bearings and Roller Bearings falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant company's factory was visite...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, filed 26 claims for refund of excise duty paid in excess. Notice was issued to it proposes to reject the claim on various grounds. After considering the reply from the claimant, and hearing it, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated holding that the assessee had not furnished documents to substantiate the claim that duty had been paid in excess.2. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found with regard to one claim for Rs. 1,41,439/- that the ground on which the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, that the claim to refund has not been substantiated was incorrect and that evidence of duty in payment in excess had been produced. He also found that the requirement contained in respect of the claim in Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act had been satisfied since the sum claimed as refund was paid through T.R.6 challans following the order-in-original of the Collector. H...

Goverdhan Creation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC592

1. Export goods allowed to be shipped provisionally have been ordered to be confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and a redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- has been imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and drawback claim has been restricted to FOB value of US$ 300 per piece as the values declared in other Shipping Bills by same kind of garments and the material used in this case appeared to be less than the material used in the Shipping bill showing the value as US$ 300 by same supplier to same buyer. Hence this appeal. (a) Price has been raised to US$ 11.70 as per Apparel Export Promotion Council letter and for getting the quota. Therefore there is no mens rea to misdeclare the Export value, as per Apparel Export Council recommendation. No market price/value misdeclared to claim excess drawback is brought on record. Therefore liability for confiscation and penalty is set aside, since there is no ground to contest the fixation of d...

inducto Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 45,98,354/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Four only) against the appellants in terms of the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with imposition of penalty of equivalent amount.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that with the introduction of compounded levy scheme, appellants' annual capacity of the furnace was required to be determined in terms of Rule 3 of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The said rule required determination of the ACP on the basis of the manufacturer's invoice, who have supplied or installed the furnace. Inasmuch as the furnace installed in their unit was in the year 1989, the invoice was not available. Accordingly they procured certificate from the manufacturer certifying that the capacity of the furnace ...

Maharashtra Magnet Wire Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. "...... On 30.3.2000 the Preventive Officers of Central Excise Aurangabad visited the factory of the appellant and conducted stock verification. The stock of final products stored in the BSR tallied with the closing balance shown in the RG1 register. However, the search of the Administrative Building of the factory revealed a stock of 503 Boxes of Super Enamelled Copper Wires, which was stored in the locked room situated in the said administrative building. All the boxes were affixed with stickers "Classique Winding Wires, M/s. Bhilai Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (Ancilliary to Bhilai Steel Plant, Village: Anjora, Dist.Rajnandgaon, M.P.)" The officers also recovered 4 invoices issued by M/s. Bhilai Conductors Pvt. Ltd. in the name of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Ahmednagar. Similarly, the officers recovered certain blank invoices of M/s. Bhilai Conductors Pvt. Ltd., which were duly pre-authenticated. The officers then seized the 503 Boxes of Super Enamelled Copper Wires totally valued at Rs....

Vimla R. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 7,70,988/- demanded from Gazebo of which the late husband of the applicant was the sole proprietor.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the benefit of exemption contained in 11/97 would not be available to nylon tricot flocking imported by the appellant for the reason that it was not intended for use in the leather industry. In its common order passed in 2003 on stay application of Mahavir and Gazebo, the Tribunal had waived deposit on the ground that the issue was covered by the decision of Madan Enterprises v. CC, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 763. The present stay application has been filed only because the appeal of Gazebo was dismissed on it being known that the proprietor had expired.Subsequently, his widow, the heir of the importer has come on record.3. In this situation, we waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery....