Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Mr. Kuriakose V. Cherian, Retired Employee of Air India Limited, Vs. A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR219

A.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 is for the issue of appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to rescind and revoke the amendment effected to the Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme as per the Deed of Variation dated 3.4.2002 and the letters dated 2.4.2002 and 3.4.2002 issued pursuant to the amended scheme requiring the pensioners to make payment of additional contribution towards annuities purchased for Respondent No. 3 Life Insurance Corporation of India and, to continue such annuities without any alteration to its terms and quantum and without any payment of additional contribution from the pensioners. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are the retired employees of the Respondent No. 2-Air India Limited. The Petitioner No. 6 is a registered association representing the retired pensioners of the Respondent No. 2. The first Respondent is the Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme constituted by ...

Ramniklal R. Mehta Vs. Wto

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Mumbai)166

ORDERG.C. Gupta, J.M.:These ten appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1992-93 are directed against the order of the CWT(A). Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these are being disposed of with this common order. The DVO has filed an application for adjournment of the case on the plea that he is devoting full time in disposing off the time barring cases. We find that the case was adjourned on 12-6-2001, at the request of the learned Departmental Representative and the last opportunity to the DVO was allowed for 12-7-2001. On 12-7-2001, the DVO did not appear and the case was adjourned to 14-8-2001. On 14-8-2001, the DVO did not attend and the case was adjourned to 13-9-2001, at the request of the learned Departmental Representative as a last opportunity to the DVO. The case was adjourned on 13-9-2001, by the order of the Bench and the parties were informed in the Court. On the next dates the case was adjourned by the order of the Bench and the case w...

Nagreeka Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT891Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,49,693/- while waiving the penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The period of dispute is from March, 2000 to November, 2000.He states that the appellants are entitled to claim benefit of Notification No. 8/97, dt. 1-3-1997 for exemption from basic excise duty as well as benefit of Notification No. 55/91, dt. 25-7-1991 for exemption from the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles). He fairly concedes that the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vardhman Polytex Limited v. U.O.I - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 17 is against the appellants. However, he states that this decision has been appealed against to the Supreme Court. He further submits that the demand has been issued in pursuance of Board's Circular No. 554/50/2000-CX., dt. 19-10-2000 which is applicable only prospectively and not before its issue. He...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT896Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ-697/B.III/94, dated 5-12-1994 whereunder he set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Belapur Divn. I and granted the refund application filed by the respondent before us and the appellant before him.2. The respondent before us is a claimant of a refund claim of Rs. 1,48,830/- claiming the said amount to have been excess excise duty borne by them on the goods viz. "super centrifuge" purchased by them from M/s. Pen-wait India Ltd. (manufacturers of the said goods) on payment of Central Excise duty @ 15% ad valorem vide GP-1 No. 32, dated 16-9-1992. The aforesaid refund was claimed by the respondent purchaser on the ground that the goods were partially exempted under Notification No. 78/90, dated 20-3-1990 and were chargeable to concessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem, if the same were intended for pollut...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Pharmacom Remedies (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants manufacture goods on their own behalf as well as on job work basis. The Additional Commissioner held that the credit earned for manufacture on behalf of the loan licensee could not be utilised for payment of duty on the goods manufactured by the appellants.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision holding that the wording of the rule did not give rise to such interpretation. The revenue in this appeal cites some instructions of the board to the effect that a loan licensee should be treated as a manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On this ground it is claimed that the credit taken on behalf of the loan licensee was not permitted to be used for clearance of other goods.3. The respondents were not present. The revenue was represented by Shri S.V. Parelkar.4. The instructions of the board are not direct opposition to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints & Others and therefore, does not survive....

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT922Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 15.20 lakhs approximately.2. The product, Tocofer, manufactured by the applicant, consisting of vitamin E in capsules put up in retail packing, was classified by the Assistant Commissioner in heading 30.03 of the tariff as proprietary medicament. On appeal from the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the product in heading 29.36 as vitamins, not as medicament and confirmed the demand for duty in the notice issued to the applicant.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the product is specifically covered by the definition contained in note (2)(i)(b) of Chapter 30, being an unmixed suitable for therapeutic or prophylactic uses put up in measured doses or in packing for retail sale or for use in hospitals. It is alternatively contended that the process undertaken by the applicant, of packing in capsules vitamin E that it obtained in bulk from its manufacturer, became dutiable only on and...

A.H.T. Lokhandwala Vs. Commissioner of Customs, C.S.i.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal was dismissed vide Order No. CI/525/WZB/2003 dated 27/02/2003 for failure on part of the appellant to pre-deposit the sum as directed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Vide this application, it is shown that the compliance was in fact made well within the period stipulated in the stay order, but due to lack of communication, this fact was not intimated to the Tribunal.3. On perusal of the documents evidencing payment, the said order is ecalled, and the appeal is restored to its original number....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gujarat Polyster

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC581Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. None is present for the respondents despite notice and adjournment granted earlier. Shri M.H.Sheikh, Learned JDR appearing for Revenue challenges the impugned Order-in-Appeal which classifies impugned goods viz. Nomex Aramid Paper under heading 85.46. The said product was classified by the Original adjudicating authority under chapter 39 on the basis of material composition, rejecting the claim of the appellants for classification under 85.46 as insulators. The Ld. JDR relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raja Radio Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - [1995 (77) E.L.T. 251 (S.C) = 1995 (58) E.C.R. 581 (S.C.)] under which it was held that paper impregnated with plastic to provide electrical grade insulation was classifiable under heading 39.01/06.2. After hearing Ld. JDR and perusal of case records, we find that the subject goods are in the form of sheets in running length and has to go through various operations such as l...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This batch of appeal has a common issue where an identical order has been made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in each case.2. The issue involved is whether an invoice issued by M/s. SAIL was a modvatable document or not. In holding in the affirmative, the Commissioner has relied upon his earlier judgment dated 13/07/95. The judgment was later upheld by the Tribunal by their order No.CI/17/WZB/2001 dated 03/01/2001.3. Following the cited Tribunal judgment, the appeals from the revenue are dismissed....

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. the Gujarat Craft Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from revenue agitates the adoption of the law given by the Tribunal in a number of judgments to the effect that gate passes issued before 31/03/94 but endorsed thereafter were modvatable documents.2. In the appeal memorandum, it is claimed that the reference application filed arising from the judgment reported in 1996 (92) ELT 588 was still pending.3. The reference application was deciding by the Gujarat High Court reported in 2001(42) RLT 475, in effect upholding the judgment. The appeal does not survive and is dismissed....