Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Forum for Fairness in Education and ors. Vs. University of Mumbai and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR398; 2003(4)BomCR9; 2004(3)MhLj119

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners as Public Interest Litigation for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent No. 1, the University of Mumbai, to allow petitioners No. 2 to 6 and other similarly placed students admitted to 3rd Semester and completed their term work to attend 4th Semester and to allow them to appear for 3rd and 4th Semester examinations simultaneously, irrespective of the number of ATKTs that they had for the First Year Degree of Engineering.2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a registered non-Government organisation established for seeking fairness in education and working for eradication of unfair practices in the field of education. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are students of respondents No. 3 to 7. They are the students studying in the 2nd Year of Bachelor of Engineering Degree in the academic year 2001-02. Respondents 3 to 7 are colleges affiliated to respondent No. 1-University.3. According to the p...

Oceanic Imports and Exports Corporation Vs. Astt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)767

ORDERMukul Shrawat, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai dated 13-9-1995. As per the grounds of appeal learned authorised representative has mentioned that three substantive grounds have been raised, which are decided as follows.2. Ground No. 1 is in respect of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 1,06,250.3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the assessee-firm carried on the business as importers/dealers of distillery raw materials oak, wood, etc. During the year of account, out of total sales of Rs. 1.47 crores, sales aggregating to Rs. 89.3 lakhs were to McDowell & Co. Thus, the McDowell & Co. was the major customer of the assessee-firm. It is submitted that it was agreed between the assessee-firm. and the McDowell & Co. that the later would give a loan of Rs. 40 lakhs free of interest. It is submitted that at the request of the vice president of McDowell & Co. Shri Ravi Jain, the assessee-firm gave...

C.C.E. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT757Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In this case, respondents made an import of certain tubes and claimed benefit of notification No. 177/88. The condition of the notification is that the imported tubes are to be utilised within one year or such extended period, as the case may be. If the importer fails to utilise the tubes within the specified period, they are liable to pay duty.3. Respondents were not able to use tubes within the specified period and, therefore, asked for extension, which was denied vide letter dated 7.1.94. Thereafter, the respondents again approached the Commissioner for extension of time, which was again denied vide letter dated 26.7.94. As the respondents had not complied with the conditions of the notification, the demand was confirmed in respect of utilised tubes, which were imported after availing the benefit of notification. On appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impug...

Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT938Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed before him against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, refusing to extend the facility of provisional assessment to Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the appellant before us.2. We think it relevant, for a full understanding of the case, to reproduce the assessee's letter to the Deputy Commissioner, as follows:- "We are selling post mix canisters to McDonalds from our factory at Wada at the prices shown in the Invoices. Since excise duty is payable on the assessable value determined Under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944, on the basis of "Transaction Value", being the actual price at which goods are sold to McDonalds from our factory, we maintain that we are correctly paying the duty of excise in respect of such sales. However, since the department is objecting to payment of duty on the basis of the actual price on which sales are made to McDonalds from our factory, we are app...

Shreeji Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,69,893.62 (the total duty demand is Rs. 13,69,893.62 out of which the applicants have already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,73,586) arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Penalty of amount equal to duty has also been imposed and waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount is also sought.2. The demand has been confirmed on the charge of clandestine removal of lids for round printed metal tins based upon the delivery challans indicating lids separately over and above the removal of round plain gold lacquered tins. It is the contention of the applicants that the order was placed upon by them for tin with lids but in the delivery challans which formed the evidence against tem in the present case, lids have been shown separately not because any excess quantity of lids was removed from their factory but because the tins were packed separately. To buttress this argument, the applicants referred to the fact that they have rec...

Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 39,93,261.00 and penalty of amount equal to duty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed under the provisions of Rule 173Q and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides as the issue in dispute stands settled by a series of decisions of the Tribunal.2. The issue involves the question as to whether aluminium circles manufactured on job work basis by the appellants herein and used in the manufacture of final products viz. aluminium utensils cleared for export under bond are required to discharge duty liability. In other words, the question is as to whether the clearance of final products under bond amounts to clearance of final products exempt from payment of duty. It is clarified that the duty demand is confined to those aluminium circles which have been used in the manufacture of final products exported under bond and does not re...

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur was engaged in the manufacture of engineering product in its factory. Among these were assemblies of earth moving equipment which were manufactured for supply to Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML for short). BEML supplied to the assessee free of cost some of the components used in the manufacture of these assemblies. The appellant used these components and others in the manufacture of the assemblies which it sold to BEML. The department issued four notices to the appellant on 4.11.1997, 2.12.1997, 18.5.1998 and 3.7.1998. these notices alleged that in arriving at the assessable value of the gods manufactured and supplied to BEML, the assessee did not take into account the cost of the material that was supplied free of cost. This is referred to by the parties as assesstance material.The two notices dated 4.11.1997 were for clearance in October 1992 and the notice dated 2.12.1997 is for a period November 1992 to 31.10.1997.Each of the notices invoke...

Hemant Surgicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(161)ELT781Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By its order passed on 13.10.1997 on the seven stay applications filed by the applicants, the Tribunal asked deposit of Rs. 1 lakh within two months, compliance to be reported on 15.12.1997.2. As the compliance has so far not been reported and the appeal came up for hearing, notice was issued proposing dismissal. The contention of the appellant's director, Hansakumar Shah, is as follows. When the applicant's employee went to Custom House to pay the amount in question, he was verbally told by the clerk in that office that the file was not traceable and that he (the applicant's clerk) would be informed by notice when the file was traded. Thereafter the dealing assistant left the company around December 1997. He further says that the amount has been deposited on 30.4.2003.3. As the departmental representative points out, this version is difficult to accept. The affidavit affirmed on 29.4.2003 five and half years after the concerned clerk has left, does not say from where he has got th...

Santogen Silk Mills, M.S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalties against all the appellants, we take up all the appeals inasmuch as prima-facie we are convinced that there has been a violation of principals of natural justice.2. In the annexure to the show cause notice a list of 17 documents relied upon have been shown. The said annexure shows that only copies of the relied upon documents from serial No. 2 to 6 were supplied to the appellants with direction to them to inspect the balance documents as reflected against Serial No. 7 to 16. The appellants vide their letters dated 26.2.2001 and 26.11.2001 made a prayer for supply of all the documents relied upon in the show cause notice. Though the said letters were received by the Revenue there was no response to the same and the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner without considering the above request of the appellants. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Revenue was duty bond to ...

Milton Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in this appeal is whether duty could be demanded from an Importer, by seeking to revoke the benefit of exemption Notification No. 203/92 which was extended to the goods on their importation.2. A Show Cause Notice issued to the appellants which alleged that input stage credit under Rule 57A was availed by the manufacturer, in respect of the goods exported towards export fulfilment. This was in violation of provision contends in para 126 of the hand book of procedure Exim policy 1992-1997 and the condition in Clause (v)(a) to Notification 203/92. The notice also invoked the extended period of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, on the ground that wrongful declaration on export documents to the effect that no input such credit (modvat) had been availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of export goods was made by the Importers. Consequently wrongful availment of duty free benefit against the said licence by the importers took place. It was fu...