Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Jag Prakash Synthetics, Atul G. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Centra ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with consent of the departmental representative. The appellants are absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. The appeals are against imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Rs. 50,000/- on Riddhi Siddhi Processors (appeal E/1114) and penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on Jag Prakash Synthetics (appeal E1112) and Atul G. Gandhi (appeal E/1113) respectively under Rule 209A.Penalties have been imposed on the finding that Riddhi Siddhi Processors evaded duty payable on goods processed by it. The other two persons abetted the evasion. Atul Gandhi was at the relevant time partner in Riddhi Siddhi Processors and proprietor of Jag Prakash Synthetics.3. The only common contention in these appeals is that, duty having been paid prior to issue of notice, penalty is not imposable. The decision of the single member of the Tribunal in Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (46) RLT 169 and other decisions followed by it were cite...

Parke Davis (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

(a) On merits, relate to the determination of value of captively consumed bulk drugs, viz. Chloramphenicol Palmitate IP, during the period 12.1992 to 29.2.1996 for which price had been fixed under the Drugs Price Control Order (herein after referred to as DPCO) when the said drugs are not only captively consumed but are also sold to the appellants' loan licensees at the DPCO prices and various other manufacturers also manufacture the same bulk drug have to sell it and actually sell it at the DPCO price. (b) On limitation as the show cause notice is dated 30.3.1997 and demands duty for the period 1.2.1992 to 29.2.1996. When except for a bald statement on the last page of Annexure A to the Show cause notice that: "The above short payment is the result of misdeclaration/suppression of fact by M/s. Parke Davis (India) Limited while declaring/paying the Central Excise duty". No other material to invoke the proviso Clause to Section 11A(1) have been alleged/relied upon.2. The learned Commis...

Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT501Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the applicability of the exemption contained in Clause (i) of entry 225 of the table to Notification 5/99. Clause (i) of the entry exempts from excise duty in excess of 16% colour television receivers classifiable in heading 85.25 of the Central Excise Tariff, "where the retail sale price is declared on the package, at the time of clearance from the factory of production, and the retail sale price declared forms the sole consideration for sale to the ultimate consumer;" the other clauses of the entry prescribe varying rates of duty applicable to other clauses, depending upon screen size of the television receivers. The appellant imported these goods, and for purposes of determination of the additional duty of customs payable on them, it claimed benefit of the exemption contained in this clause of the entry. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs denied the exemption on the grounds contained in the following paragraph of his order :- "I a...

Lenzohm Electrical Engg. Co. Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT435Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Lenzohm Electrical Engg. Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the repair of coils of electrical transformers, motors and armatures. One of the processes involved in such repairs is unwinding of damaged coils and replacing of the damaged portion by a fresh strips of electrical conductors. The fresh strip was welded on the protruding end of the coil, the insulation wind around fresh strip which has been wound on the existing layer of the coil. The notice issued to it alleged that in this process the appellant manufacture insulated electric wire of an uninsulated wire and demanded duty on the insulated wire. The Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, held that there was manufacture of insulated wire and confirmed liability to duty and while ordering that the Assistant Commissioner to quantify the duty payable, imposed a penalty equal to the amount of duty recoverable. The appeal by the department against this order contends that the Commissioner himself held the goods liable to duty a...

Shri Harish G. Dawda, Shri P.V. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is taken up for decision by this common order as they arise from the same order of Commissioner of Customs Preventive.2. It appears that on the basis of specific information, the officer of SIU intercepted a tempo alongwith one person, named Shri Amrut Solanki (appellants before us) and found imported cigarettes cartons being transported in the tempo. Shri Amrut Solanki could not produce any documents for show duty payment on the cigarettes being carried in the tempo in which he was found. Enquiries made recorded that inter alia, M/s. Vishwanath Shipping Agency (P) Ltd. (another appellant herein) who is the Customs House Agent Firm, had attended two imports made in the name of M/s. Fashion Variation and Shri P.V. Raut (appellant before us) was the authorized signatory of the CHA company while one Shri H.G.Dawda (another appellant before us) was identified by the investigating officers as representative of the CHA firm and these concerned with the clearance and...

Madhucon Bina Puri J.V., Bsc-rbm Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in these three stay petitions is common. These petitions are therefore, being disposed off by this common order.2. The appellants had imported Mitsubishi MG-330 Motor Graders. These graders were cleared after due inspection and verification of the documents by the Custom authorities by granting them the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus dtd. 02/06/1998. Later pursuant to an information received by the officer of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai that the subject Graders have been cleared at nil rate of duty wrongly by describing them as surface dressing equipment and they were not entitled to the exemption, proceedings were initiated and concluded by the Commissioner of Customs, G.N.P.T. who vide the above said order, were confiscated the Graders and imposed redemption fines & demanded duty by denying the benefit of Notification No. 23/98 alongwith interest and imposed penalties. The details of the duties and penalties are as follows:- (a) In case of...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT445Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the violation of the physician sample of ayurvedic medicament that the assessee manufactured and distributed free of cost. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the correctness of the value determined by the assessee of the goods on the basis of the cost of their production. The appeal contends that the value of the sample would be based on the cost of medicament of which they were samples. In its decision in Cheryl Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE -1997 (93) E.L.T.129 and in CCE v. Mayo India Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 192; the Tribunal had held that the value of these samples should be determined, based upon the value of comparable goods manufactured by the same assessee.2. The Counsel for the respondent contends that this is incorrect. He says that it will be more appropriate to accept the cost of manufacture to apply Rule 6(b)(ii) to determine the value of cost of manufacture.3. We are unable to agr...

Mr. Dhirubhai H. Ambani (Huf) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 28-4-1998. "The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XXXII, Mumbai has erred in confirming disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,11,376/- incurred in relating to Khandala Property and claimed as deductible from the rental income." 3. The assessee is stated to be in the business of letting out properties and earning rental income thereof. One of the properties at Khandala of which the assessee was the owner was given on rent to Swadi Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. as per the agreement dated 29-7-1992 between Mukesh Taxtiles (proprietary concern of the assessee) and M/s Swaid Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. As per this agreement the tenant was responsible to pay monthly outgoings such as water charges, electricity charges and maintenance etc., but the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed in its profit & loss account water charges, electricity charges and telephone charges aggregating Rs. 2,22,376/-. When asked to explain the r...

Mangal Shridhar Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR532; 2004(1)BomCR370

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. The Petitioners in both these petitions are teachers. Both of them are claiming a post under Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, an educational institution running a large number of schools and colleges in Maharashtra. This Sanstha is joined as Respondent No. 2 in the first petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 6240 of 2000. Respondent No. 4 is Principal of Azad College run by this Sanstha. Respondent No. 1 and 3 are State of Maharashtra and Joint Secretary, Higher Education. The Petitioner in the second petition is Respondent No. 6 in the first petition.2. As far as the second petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2611 of 2001 is concerned, the State Government and the Joint Secretary, Higher Education are Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 thereto. Rayat Shikshan Sanstha is Respondent No. 2 and Azad College is Respondent No. 4. Shivaji University is Respondent No. 5 and the Petitioner in the first petition is joined as Respondent No. 6 in the second petition. For the sake of convenience, we are re...

Suresh Balkrishna Pogale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR821; 2003(3)MhLj782

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether a male person can be allowed to fill in the nomination form for the purpose of election to the post of Sarpanch by de-reservation of the post which is reserved for the women of the general category by virtue of Section 30(4)(c) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1938 (for short the Act) read with Rule 2A of The Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch) Election Rules 1964 (for short the Rules). 3. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner is an elected member of the Gram Panchayat Pawana. The elections for the post of Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch were held on 8-9-2000. The respondent No. 4, Tahsildar, came to be appointed as Presiding/Returning Officer for the aforesaid elections. However, respondent No. 3 Additional District Collector held the elections for the post of Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitio...