Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Vibhavari Dilip Pawa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR879; 2003(5)BomCR440

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. TheLearned counsel for the Respondents waives service.By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In these proceedings, the MaharashtraUniversity of Health Sciences ('MUHS') prays for amodification of directions (i) to (iv) contained inparagraph 34 of the judgment and order dated 25thFebruary, 2003 passed by this court. Thesedirections are as follows:'(i) In terms of Rule 56 of Ordinance 1 of2002, which provides three heads ofpassing, namely (i) Theory, (ii)Practicals and (iii) InternalAssessment and in view of Rule 57, astudent in order to pass theexamination must obtain 50% marks ineach of the three heads of passing asaforesaid separately; (ii) Consequently, so long as Rules 56 and57 of Ordinance 1 of 2002 continue tohold the field, it would not be opento MUHS to regard the Orals as aseparate head of passing eitherindependently or in conjunction withany of the three heads of passingstipulated in Rule 56; (iii) The results ...

State Bank of India Vs. Alstom Power Boilers Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR421; [2003]116CompCas1(Bom); [2003]43SCL449(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 31st October, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Company Petition No. 337 of 2002 and the Company Petition No. 338 of 2002.2. The Company Petition No. 337 of 2002 arose out of the Company Application No, 116 of 2002 filed by Alstom Boilers Private Limited (for short 'ABPL' or the transferor Company) and the Company Petition No. 338 of 2002 arose out of the Company Application No. 117 of 2002 filed by Alstom India Limited (for short 'APIL' or the transferee Company). Three companies namely (i) Alstom Transport Limited, (ii) Alstom Systems Limited and (iii) APBL belonging to the Alstom group sought to merge with another group company viz APIL under the Scheme of Arrangement which is challenged in this appeal. The Scheme of Arrangement of the two transferor companies namely Alstom Transport Limited and Alstom Systems Limited having their registered offices in Delhi has already been approve...

Capstan Engineering Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(161)ELT122(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard. Petitioners are a Partnership Firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. The Petitioners are also registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Directorate of Industries, Maharashtra State and bearing Registration No. 11-07-03298-PMT-SSI. The Petitioners have filed the petition and amongst others prayed for the following reliefs: -'To issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to continue to avail itself of the benefit accruing to it under the Notification bearing No. 216/88, dated 7th July, 1988, of having to pay a concessional rate of duty on the Jumbo Rolls of colour photographic papers which it imports.'2. The Petitioners have also prayed that the notification bearing No. 216/8, dated 7th July, 1988 be declared as illegal and ultra vires and claimed directions against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allow them to clear the Jumbo Rolls of c...

Capstan Engineering Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR584

Daga V.C., J.1. Heard. Petitioners are a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioners are also registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Director of Industries, Maharashtra State and Bearing Registration No. 11-07-03298-PMT-SSI. The petitioners have filed the petition and amongst others prayed for the following reliefs:--'To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to continue to avail itself of the benefit accruing to it under the Notification bearing No. 216/88 dated 7th July, 1988, of having to pay a concessional rate of duty on the Jumbo Rolls of colour photographic papers which it imports.'2. The petitioners have also prayed that the Notification bearing No. 216/88 dated 7th July, 1988 be declared as illegal and ultra vires and claimed directions against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to allow them to clear the Jumbo Rolls of colour ...

Kalpavruksh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation for assessment of intimation pearls that the appellant imported. In the bill of entry that it filed for their clearance it described the goods as "false imitation pearls of plastic". The vale declared for assessment was at the rate of US$ 8 per kg. CIF which was the value shown in the invoice of the consignee. Officers of the department had the samples of the goods tested by the Chemical Examiner of the department and also had their value assessed by 2%. The Chemical Examiner reported that the goods were composed of calcium carbonate and not made of plastic. The two persons who examined the goods, Pankaj M.Jhaveri and Atul P. Jhaveri, reported, after confirming that the goods were imitation pearls, that "to the best of our knowledge and judgment, the fair value of the goods may be US$ 60 per Kilo CIF". In his two statements that wer...

Mira Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty and penalty.2. The appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was against the order of the Joint Commissioner. In that order, the Joint Commissioner has found against the applicant on the ground that it did not produce to him copies of the invoices under which it sold to its buyers the goods that it processed. While the Commissioner (Appeals) records, in his order disposing of the stay application filed before him, the submission that these documents had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 5^th February 2002 (the date on which he passed his order). He also records that this order or the invoices are not in the case records.Counsel for the applicant is not able to make a statement that copies of the letter dated 5.2.2001 addressed to the Joint Commissioner or of the invoices which were stated to be enclosed in the appeal memorandum or the stay a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cummins India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Cummins India Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, was engaged in the manufacture of supercharger and fuel injection equipment to be supplied to heavy vehicles factory, Avadi, for fitment to the main battle tank that was being manufactured by their factory. The assessee classified both these items in heading 87.10 of the Central Excise tariff as parts of the tank and claimed total exemption from duty contained in entry 245 of the table to notification 5/98, which exempts from duty parts of main battle tank classifiable in specified chapters of the tariff, including Chapter 87. The notice issued to the assessee proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that the goods were not classifiable in Chapter 87 they were classifiable in heading 84.09-parts suitable for use solely or principally or solely with internal combustion engines. It called upon the assessee to show cause when the goods should not be classifiable in heading 84.09, why the exemption claimed by the assessee should no...

Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT803Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for restoration of the appeal dismissed by Order No.CI/4065/WZB/2002, dated 2-12-2002 is allowed in view of the explanation of the appellants that notice fixing the hearing of the appeal on 21-11-2002 was received on 20-11-2002 and therefore they could not contact and brief their advocate for appearance on the date fixed.3. Out of the 14 invoices on which credit has taken and disallowed, 12 are endorsed invoices. In the light of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 it is held that endorsed invoices are not a valid duty paying documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit. Therefore credit availed on 12 endorsed invoices is held to be inadmissible. However, as regard the invoices No. 9 dated 7-4-1994 and invoice No. 50, dated 25-4-1994 of M/s. Pioneer Dye Chem Corporation covering a total amount of Rs. 50,616/- the ground for denial is that Pioneer Dye Chem Corporation is not a wholesale dealer. Th...

Anil Polyethykne Indus. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT321Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide declaration dated 27-12-91, the appellants declared one of the inputs as ''Organic Pigment/Colour" falling under sub-heading 3204.19 and showed "Master Batches" as final products.2. The description on GP1 dated 24-5-1993 was "4203005 - permanent yellow Ch. H. No. 3204.19". This was made the point of denial of credit at both the original and the first appellate level. I find that this was unwarranted in as much as the sub-heading was shown correctly.Since the declaration included all colours, a specific colour was shown in the gate pass did not put the product out of the range of coverage of the description in the declaration. The precedent number might signify the code of the supplier and is entirely immaterial.3. The second ground of which the denial was made was that the pigment was used in the manufacture of bags for which declaration was later filed and the subject goods were received before filing the declaration. This ground is also not correct in as much as the pigments...

Dabsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT347Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 12,39,721/- and equivalent penalty.2. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of blades for electric fan, guards for such blades. It had claimed the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 9/98 and its successors for the period of three years commencing from 1998-1999. For computing the value of these clearances in terms of the notification, it did not include the cost of these parts cleared to Crompton Greaves Ltd. on the ground that they bore the brand name of that company. Duty had become payable without the exemption in respect of these goods. Notice issue to it alleged that the goods did not bear the brand name of Crompton Greaves ltd. It relied on the definition in the explanation to paragraph 4 of the notification. This says briefly that brand name or trade name refers to a name, mark etc. used to indicate the connection "in the course of trade between the goods and the person using such name or mark". Th...