Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Voltas Limited, a Company Registered Under the Indian Companies Act, 1 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom351; 2003(3)ALLMR148; 2003(3)BomCR1; 2003(2)MhLj742

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the reliefs prayed in the petitions. In the first petition (Writ Petition No. 1481 of 2002), the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside orders dated 5th February, 2002, 18th February, 2002 and a demand notice dated 6th March, 2002. In the second petition (Writ Petition No. 7457 of 2002) a prayer is made for quashing orders dated 30th March, 2002, 13th May, 2002 and 9th October, 2002.2. The case of the petitioner in the first petition (Writ Petition No. 1481 of 2002) is that it is a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing air conditioners, refrigerators and other items. The establishment is located at Chinchopkli in Bombay. In 1966, the petitioner set up a factory at Thane to carry out manufacturing activities. For the said purpose, it purchased land admeasuring about 98,000 sq.mtrs. at village Majiwade, from a private ...

Mohan Parasnath Goswami Vs. the Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Certif ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR409; 2003(3)BomCR481

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waive service of rule on behalf of the respective Respondents.A. The compass of the controversy2. Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and for the Backward Classes is an important component of the policy of the State of ensuring electoral representation to these communities in institutions of local self governance. Equally, there is legislative recognition of the concern that affirmative action programmes must reach out to those who genuinely belong to the communities for whom they are designed. Election to a local self governing body on a reserved seat, of a candidate who does not belong to the community for whom the seat is reserved is destructive of the object and purpose of the reservation. A candidate who does not belong to the class for whom the seat is reserved in a democratically elected body does not truly represent the class. This concern led to the enactment by the ...

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Sureshchandra Khushalchand Bakliwal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR501; 2003(6)BomCR778

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal by the State Government, feeling aggrieved by the decision dated 25th January, 1993, of this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 286/991 (Old No. 269/1983). Facts leading to this appeal are required to be stated.2. Writ Petition No. 286/1991 came to be filed by two brothers, by name, Sureshchandra and Ashokchand Bakliwal, contending that, they were originally residents of village Pravara Sangam in Newasa Taluka of Ahmednagar District, located on the banks of Godavari river. Their family owned ancestral properties, including houses and agricultural land in the said village and the said property came to be acquired by the Government of Maharashtra for the Jayakwadi Project. Consequently, the petitioners shifted to Ahmednagar and purchased jointly a plot of land in Survey No. 109 situated at Sawedi to have their own residential house. The petitioner No. 1 had 1 Ana and 6 paise share whereas, petitioner No. 2 had 2 Anas and 6 pais...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Pacific Export

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT531Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in which she has recorded as follows :- "On going through the facts of the case I hold that the present case is covered by Section 61 of the Customs Act, as amended with effect from 13-5-1994. Duty is payable at the rate in force on the date of actual removal and interest is payable on such duty. Section 61(2) covers this case squarely. In view of above impugned order is set aside with consequential benefit to the appellants.Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue states that in the case of clearance from a warehouse relating to time expired bond cases, the duty has to be charged at the rate prevailing on the date of expiry of the bond as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.). As such, he argues. Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in holding in her order that the...

Borough Wellcome (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT672Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri R.G. Sheth, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants manufacture P & P medicines. During July, 1999 to August, 2000, they imported finished P & P medicines in fully packed conditions, which did not require any more processing. However, to comply with Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the imported medicines are required to be labelled. In terms of the said rule, the following information is required to be cited on the label: - (e) Correct statement of net content in terms of weight, measure, volume, number of units 2. The imported medicines do not contain some of this information such as retail price in Rupees. To comply with the said Rule 96, the appellants sought permission from the Central Excise Department for affixing stickers/ labels on the imported medicines in their factory.Such permissions were also granted by the Central Excise Department. In terms of Board's Circular F. No. 102/4/95/CX-3, dated 14-5-96, the activity of affi...

Nilkamal Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue in this appeal challenge the Commissioner's (Appeal) orders holding the following items as capital goods eligible for modvat credit. Electrical Panel Board, Power supply, Transformer, Fuses, Semiconductor devices, Capacitor, Air Compressor, Air Dryer and Oil Cooler Assembly.2. The claim made is that these cannot be considered as capital goods on the ground that these items do not participate in the process of manufacture. Reliance is placed on the Tribunal judgment in the case of M/s. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., (1997 (89) ELT 84 (T).3. I observe that the M/s. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., judgment is no longer good law. The Supreme Court have upheld the Tribunal's order holding that all electrical machineries, wires, cables etc. as admissible goods. {2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC)} The assessees are manufacturing plastics articles, which require machinery, etc. for heating of raw materials and for cooling of finished products. Air compressors are held as eli...

Kalyani Brakes Ltd. and S.B. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There issues are required to be considered in this appeal by Kalyani Brakes Ltd., S.B. Kulkarni, its manager.2. The first issue is the value on which the appellant paid duty on parts of brake assemblies for motor vehicle when it cleared these from the factory of manufacture at Jalgaon to its own factory at Girgaum for further assembling. The duty has been demanded that the value should have been based, not as was done, cost of manufacture, at the price at which such goods were sold by the appellant from the factory at Jalgaon for home use as spare parts. Counsel for the appellant accepts that on merits he has no case that the duty ought to have been in terms of Rule 6b(i) of the Valuation Rules on the value of goods which was sold. He however contends that the extended period of limitation will not be available to the department by relying on the Essel Packaging Industries v. CCE 2000 (117) ELT 466. In addition, separate price lists were filed by the manufacturer showing the price ...

Benzo Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed on the applicant of Rs. 13,03,362/- on Benzo Chem Inds. P. Ltd. and Rs. 10,000 on M.K. Patel, its administrative officer. The duty demanded from the assessee of Rs. 13.03 lakhs has already been deposited.2. The amount that was demanded from the assessee represented modvat credit that it took of the duty paid on the various quantities of inputs required for manufacture of orthochloro benzene, which it was alleged in the notice issued to it, had not been used by it in the manufacture of final product, but had been disposed of by sending it to another unit. Failure to follow Rule 57F in this regard was also held.The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. Disposing of the appeal against that order, the Tribunal noted that the data on which notice was issued had been retrieved from the assessee's possession and if this data was sufficient to conclude that the inputs had been sent to another unit the statements...

Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT428Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri S.R. Patankar, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar falling under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants filed a rebate claim for Rs. 1,46,856/-in respect of the excess production of sugar during the months of May and June 1998 as per the provisions of Notification No. 160/88 dated 3-5-88. The rebate claim was sanctioned and paid to the appellants on 7-12-1988.2. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 13-2-1989 calling upon them to show cause as to why the rebate claim erroneously granted and paid to them should not be recovered under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the appellants did not file the Classification list claiming the benefit of the Notification No. 160/88 dated 3-5-88.3. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his Order-in-Original No. 93/89 dated 3-4-1989 confirmed the demand.4. Appellants paid the amount...

Kamal Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC28Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of two separate adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise involving a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants who are Letter of Authority holders for M/s.Universal Footwear, Mumbai filed Bs/E on 7-11-85 for clearance of 'Dodecyl Benzene' under REP licence No. 3079561 dated 29-9-84 and Automatic supplementary licence No. 1989052 dated 28-3-1985. The licences were valid for import of items mentioned in Col. 4 read with Col. 5 against product group D. 2.1(ii) of Appendix 17 of AM-85 Policy with face value restrictions if any provided therein. The end product was leather and rubber footwear. The REP licence dated 29-9-84 also bore the following endorsement: "This licence will also be valid for import of items permissible under sub para 138(13)(ii) for a value of Rs. 2,47,650/-. The value of a single item not to exceed Rs. 2,47,650/- under para 138 of Import Export P...