Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Quality Steels and Forgings Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Uma Shankar, learned S.D.R. appeared for the Department None is present on behalf of the Respondent. The learned S.D.R. reiterates the ground taken in the departmental appeal which is as follows: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in Sub-section (2)." In this case the claim for refund filed on 30.8.92, is clearly time-barred having been made after six months of payment of duty as the duty was not paid under protect. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI, [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] has held as under, "It is then pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants that if the above interpretation is placed upon amended Section 11B, a curious consequence will follow. It is s...

S.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT376Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, has confirmed the classification of goods imported by the Appellant under Tariff Heading 39.20 and also confirmed the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed upon the appellants.2. Counsel for the appellant argued that there has been no material justification it is not the question for the Commissioner (Appeals) for dismissal of the appeal. The imported item mentioned in bill of entry filed by the importer as "RED VITON COMPOUND (Methanol Resistant)." There is no dispute that the classification claimed was under Chapter sub-heading 3904.90. The classification was denied only on the ground that the goods were in the irregular shape. The classification of goods was made under Chapter heading 39.04 and it is found to be correct.Just because the goods were in irregular in shape that does not entitle the authorities below to bring the case under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the ...

Skm Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,09,643/- and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Smt. Mani Prakash, learned Consultant submits that the applicant was a processor of man-made fabrics deemed credit benefit under Notification 29/96. During the period July to October, 1997 the applicant had sent goods for job work to M/s. MRTI Processors who returned the semi-processed fabrics on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty @ 12% BED + 8% AED after availing deemed credit equal to 60% of the BED as provided under Notification 29/96. On receipt of the duty paid semi-processed fabrics the applicant availed modvat credit of the full duty paid by M/s. MRTI Processors, carried out further process and then cleared the finished products on payment of duty @ 20%. The department was of the view that the applicant had taken excess credit equal to the deemed credit availed of by the job worker whereas they should have taken credit only on actual duty paid by the job work...

Veenu Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein who are an export firm made shipment under the advance licence DEEC Scheme and submitted the DEEC passbook for getting it logged towards fulfilment of the export obligation. On scrutiny of the documents submitted, the shipping bills revealed that the resultant product to be exported out of the raw material was 100% linen dyed men's short sleeves shirts while the test reported of the subject goods showed that the shirts were duly composed of regenerated cellulose. On this basis the department was of the view that what was sought to be exported were not linen dyed men's shirts and therefore the goods were mis-declared in the shipping bills. Proceedings took place before the Commissioner of Customs who upheld the charge of mis-declaration and hence confiscated the shirts and imposed a redemption fine equal to the amount of duty foregone i.e., Rs. 6,39,677/-. In addition he imposed penalty of Rs. 70,000/- under Section 114 of t...

Shri Gurudatta Sugars Ltd. and Shri Madhavrao Bhagwanrao Ghatge Managi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR591; 2004(1)BomCR411

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith so far as respondents No. 1 to 6 are concerned. Since the order we are proposing to pass in the present petition would not in any way adversely affect respondents No. 7 and 8, we have proceeded to hear and dispose of the petition finally.2. Mr. R.S Apte, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. R.M. Patne, learned A.G.P., appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6.3. This petition is filed for several reliefs prayed in the petition. It is, however, not necessary to enter into larger question. We may state that against cancellation and revocation of Industrial Entrepreneur Memoranda (IEM), the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing writ Petition No. 5320 of 2002. In that petition. legality of certain orders was challenged inter alia on the ground that they had been passed against the petitioners in violation of princip...

Baburao Gangaram Gadiwad Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR526; 2004(1)BomCR364

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order of the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 7.5.2003 in Revision Application No. 427 of 2003.2. This Court issued notice on 3.6.2003 which was made returnable today. The notice indicated that the matter was to be finally disposed of at the notice stage. The respondents are served and are appearing through learned Counsel. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.3. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 3-society is a notified society. Elections of respondent No. 3 - society were due to be held in the Co-operative year 2002-2003. In the circumstances, a provisional list of voters was prepared and published in terms of Section 56B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Objections to the said list were invited and the last date was 16th April 2003. The objections which were received as per t...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Haribhau Krishnaji Deshmukh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)111; 2003BomCR(Cri)1233; 2003CriLJ3639; 2003(4)MhLj1060

Palshikar, J. 1. By this appeal the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed on 25-2-1987 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1983 acquitting the accused of all the charges levelled against them. The facts giving rise to this appeal stated briefly are that one Hari was employed as a cow boy by one of the accused. There was some dereliction of duty on the part of Hari and therefore he was slapped by two of the accused. Accused No. 1 twisted his ear and slapped him on his face. This Hari is of very young age and felt insulted by the assault and therefore did not go on duty on the next day. This gave rise to heated verbal exchange of words between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused. Altercations took place. It is alleged that one Baban, member of the family of the complainant received severe beating and thrashing as a consequence of which he died. Some other members of the complainant's family were also injured...

Shailaja D/O Ramakant Paliwal (Minor) Through Her Natural Guardian Ram ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR316; 2003(4)MhLj701

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the respondent.2. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.3. The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 5th June, 2003,whereby the petitioner was informed by the R. S. G. K. Agrawal High Schoolthat he is debarred from appearing in the Examination upto October, 2003. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thepetitioner appeared in the H. S. S. C. Examination held in February-2003 fromCentre No. 102-B, R. S. G. K. Agrawal Junior College, Tumsar, District-Bhandara. On 28-2-2003, Flying Squad of the respondent Board visited the saidcentre and at the relevant time, students were solving the Chemistry-II paper atthe centre. The members of the flying squad of respondent Board visited theroom where the petitioner and other students were solving their papers and one ofthe member picked up a printed chit or note from the room, whic...

Mohan R. Mhatre Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR801; 2004(1)BomCR350; 2003(4)MhLj1047

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the records. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 24-04-1998, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 594/1997. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner was sought to be transferred from Mumbai to Delhi by order dated 17-6-1997 issued by the respondent No. 1. On receipt of the said order the petitioner filed the present complaint before the Industrial Court, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed with M/s Herbertsons Limited since 1987 in their clerical cadre. By letter issued in January 1993, he was sought to be transferred to Associate company viz. the respondent No. 1 in their office at Mumbai and continued to work in their office ...

Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Indus Ind Bank Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR837; 2003(6)BomCR675; (2003)185CTR(Bom)575

S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this notice of motion the plaintiffs seek temporary injunction inter alia restraining the 2nd defendant from exercising any right including a right to vote over or in respect of the 10 lakhs shares of Indus Ind Bank held by the 2nd defendant. They also seek an injunction restraining the defendants from exercising any voting right in respect of shares and for direction to them to handover all the benefits arising out of the said shares including a sum of Rs. 1,01,76,820 as dividend. This injunction is sought in this suit in which the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that it is they who are the beneficial owner of the 10 lakhs shares of the Indus Ind Bank described in Exhibit 'A' to the plaint and are alone entitled to all the benefits and rights including dividends, etc.2. The shares have been attached by the defendant No. 3, the TRO for recovery of dues of income-tax from monies payable by the defendant No. 2, A.N. Corporation Ltd. to the said defaulter. In the ...