Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Mattel Toys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT752Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal was listed for out of turn hearing by orders of the Tribunal dated 19.10.2000. The matter has been subsequently adjourned either on the request of the appellant or the department on 25.7.01, 21.3.02, 7.8.2002, 11.9./2002, 30.10.2002 and 16.1.2003 and came up for hearing on 4.3.2003. Each of the departmental representatives present in the Court stated that they were not handling this matter, stating that counsel for the Government was to appear. Nobody appeared for the department, nor was any request for adjournment made by the department.We therefore proceeded to hear the counsel to hear the counsel for the appellant and thereafter reserved the matter for our consideration. On the next day Mr. Mishra, advocate appeared and stated that the counsel for the department could not appear because the department had not been in touch with him and requested for relisting the matter for hearing.He was informed that this was not sufficient ground for rehearing the matter.2. Mattel ...

Kwality Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT671Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) imposing redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-and penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the appellants herein. The brief facts of the case are that on visit of the Central Excise officers to the appellant's factory on 2-10-1996 excess stock of 313 pieces of processed man-made fabrics was found which was not recorded/entered in the R.G. 1 register. The statement of Shri Kishorchandra Jariwala, Partner was recorded in which he admitted the fact of non-accountal.The excess stock was seized and show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of duty on the excess quantity and proposing confiscation and penalty both on the mills and its partner. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 75,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- on the mills and its partner respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Unique Pharmaceuticals Lab

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P&P medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, and availing Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs for the manufacture of their final products. It was noticed that they had availed of Modvat credit of Rs. 2,52,774.98 on the strength of Bills of Entries showing somebody else as the consignee. Therefore, notice proposing disallowance of credit of the above mentioned amount was issued. The notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector who passed the order-in-original dated 27-9-1988 vacating the demand of Rs. 2,27,524.78 but confirming the denial of an amount of Rs. 31,250.10.The Commissioner (Appeals) on hearing the submissions of the importers that they had received the entire consignment with proper endorsement on the bill of entry and were, therefore, entitled to credit of Rs. 31,250.10, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, who passed fresh adjudication order dated 28-7-1994 holding tha...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. (Appeals) Vs. Preeti Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT936Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The respondents have filed their written submissions. The respondents have contended that the impugned order relates to the goods exported outside India and the export was not to Nepal or Bhutan. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have filed the present appeal but a revision application under Section 35EE. Besides, the appeal cannot succeed because the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the case to the jurisdictional officer to examine whether the export of the subject goods was in order. It was so, then benefit of Rule 13 is to be given to the respondents post facto. The respondents also submitted that Rule 13 would undoubtedly come into play as the export of the goods had taken place and the export was in order and no duty of excise could be demanded for the goods actually exported outside the country in accordance with the underlying objective of the procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules. It is also submitted that there is no...

Kalwan Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Through the Chairman Shri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR841; 2003(5)BomCR656; 2003(3)MhLj442

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant GovernmentPleader, appears and waives service of notice ofrule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In theacts and circumstances, the matter was taken upfor final hearing with the consent of parties.2. This Writ Petition is filed by thepetitioners for an appropriate writ, direction ororder quashing and setting aside an order datedJanuary 22, 2003 passed by the District DeputyRegistrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik,respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 44 of theMaharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing(Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act'), and the Maharashtra AgriculturalProduce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').3. The case of the petitioners in the petitionis that petitioner No. 1, Kalwan AgriculturalProduce Market Committee, is an AgriculturalProduce Market Committee constituted in accordancewith the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Nos. 2to 16 are elected members...

Merino Leathers Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company Registered Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)141; 2003BomCR(Cri)1642; 2004(1)MhLj66

J.G. Chitre, J.1. These two applications have been disposed of by common judgment and order.2. The Petitioners are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 1995 by which she directed the Addl. Chief Metropolitan magistrate 37th court, Esplanade, Bombay, Bombay to hear further the complaint which was filed by Respondent No. 1 in his Court for setting aside the order which has been passed by him on 1.12.1994 by which he discharged the present petitioners.3. The complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 alleging that the petitioners committed an offence under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC. Respondent No. 1 alleged that though the petitioners were bound to give him the commission in context with the articles exported for sale to customers residing in Germany, Berlin, Switzerland,he did not pay the said commission amount to the respondent No. 1 (original complainant). He ...

Ramesh S/O Uttamrao Bhanapure Vs. Anjanabai W/O Gopalrao Bhanapure (De ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR745

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original defendants. The original defendant No. 1 died and in her place, Sulochana-respondent No. 1 is brought on record.FACTS2. The peculiar admitted facts in the present case are that the property was owned by one Gopalrao. Gopalrao had a wife Anjanabai. However, he had no issues. The said Gopalrao, when he was almost 70 years old, gifted the suit property to Rainesh, the plaintiff herein, who was 9 months old at that time and who was Gopalrao's nephew. Sushilabai was the natural guardian of Rainesh. The father of Ramesh, Uttamrao was a Patwari working in the revenue office. In this admitted background, it would be relevant to examine the facts of the present case. Plaintiff Ramesh, who was a minor, filed a suit through his natural guardian father Uttamrao against Anjanabai, the wife of Gopalrao, challenging the document dated 2.9.69 executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of A...

Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None appeared for the respondents. We have heard Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R.2. The appellants initially paid half a month's duty for the period 16/12/1998 to 31/12/1998. Subsequently, they paid an amount of Rs. 35,484/- which was the duty for one extra day alongwith interest of Rs. 2,170/- after a delay of 62 days on 08/03/1999. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided that payment of half a month's duty for the period in question was in order and the appellants were not required to pay an extra day's duty.3. Consequently, the refund claim was sanctioned by the Dy.Commissioner of the extra day's duty and interest amount of Rs. 37,655/-. On department's appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dis-allowed the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, since the appellants have not been able to establish that the said amount was not passed on to the customers.4. In view of the fact that the extra duty with interest was paid later on at the instance of the department, it is cl...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Calama Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT550Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri A.K. Saxena, learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in view of the provisions as contained in Section 12E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the Commissioner (Appeals) can not exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on a Central Excise officer. In the present case the Commissioner (Appeals) has condoned the delay of more than two months in bringing back the goods to the factory beyond the prescribed period of one year.Therefore his submission is that the appeal is not maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has wrongly exercised the power. Shri Girish Angolkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Binny Ltd. reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 722 (Tri.) the Tribunal held that the proviso to Rule 12 gives the legal authority to the Collector to condone the minor lapses. However they find no reasons to interfere with the order of the Collector ...

Vandana Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The learned Consultant for the appellants states that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the following in the impugned order:- "From the findings of the Deputy Commissioner vide his impugned order-in-0original dated 29/10/2001, it is apparent that the appellant had tried to mislead the Commissioner (Appeals) by stating that the stenter machine had remained closed and sealed continuously during the period. Though the appellant had contended that the allegation is incorrect in support of their claim. They submitted the abstract of page 1 & 2. However, there are no entries of its reopening, whereas the same stenter No. 4490 was again sealed on 17/10/2000 and reopened on 01/11/2000. This means that stenter was working prior to 17/10/2000 and therefore, the appellant's submission that it had continuously remained sealed till 01.11.2000 is incorrect and misleading which had to be taken seriously.She states that particularly the underlined portion is extraneous ...