Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Mmk Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Customs Overruled

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT722Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Facts in this bunch of 14 appeals are that the appellants are carrying on their business as Free Trade Zone units set up in Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ). The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of gold jewellery. In some of the cases, primary gold was imported by MMTC and it was sold to some of the appellants. In other cases, the appellants themselves imported the gold from abroad. Besides the gold, the appellants also imported mountings and findings for the purpose of manufacture and export of gold jewellery. Finding is nothing but a part of jewellery used in making jewellery. The examples of finding are clasps, hooks, pin backs, jump rings and ear-ring backs. Mounting is nothing but a piece of jewellery that is ready to have the gem stone set in it.2. The appellants claimed exemption under Notifications 177/94-Cus. and 196/87-Cus.3. The Notification 177/94 provided inter alia in Clauses 8 and 10 thereof as follows :- "(8) Gem and jewellery...

Apar Limited, Shri R.J. Awasthi, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These stay applications are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out from the same order.2. M/s. Apart Limited hereinafter referred to as "the company" imported four consignments and presented the following DEPB Licences duly transferred in their favour for clearance of the goods:- The company also imported further consignment which were also sought clearance against transferable DEPB's. The DEPB's were purchased by the company in the normal course of business for a of consideration.Through one Mr. Kirit Kamdar (since deceased) who was introduced to them by one Mr. Kishore Advani, a regular supplier of goods known to the company. The payments for the purchase were made by the pay orders/cheques.4. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers, working out an information, that certain DEPB licences were forged and fabricated documents, conducted enquiries. A show cause notice dtd.31/05/1999 was issued, inter alia to the company its Director and two other employees, wh...

Shri Sandesh Yashwant Katwate Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Se ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR103; 2004(1)BomCR164; 2003(4)MhLj345

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.2. On 4th August 1994, the Executive Magistrate, Alibagh, District Raigad granted a Caste Certificate to the Petitioner certifying that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli community which is designated as a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Panvel Municipal Council on 5th December 1995. The Caste Certificate was referred for verification to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Konkan Division. An enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Vigilance Cell attached to the Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Cell examined the school records and other relevant material in relation to the claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Mahadeo Koli community and submitted its report. A copy of the report was forwarded to the Petitioner and by a notice dated 2nd August 1999 he was given an opportunity of furnishing his response. The peti...

Biddle Sawyer Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chemical Employees Union

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR475; 2004(2)BomCR857; (2003)IIILLJ1014Bom

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.2. Perused the records.3. The petitioners challenge impugned order dated September 17, 1999, passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay in Complaint (ULP) No. 1267 of 1998. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court while rejecting the application of the Petitioner for deletion of the name of the Petitioner No. 2 from the proceedings, has, allowed the application filed by the Respondent for direction to the petitioners to produce the agreement between the Petitioner No. 1 and the Petitioner No. 2 relating to the sale of 100% equity share capital of the petitioner No. 1 in favour of the petitioner No. 2.4. The order of rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for deletion of the name of petitioner No. 2 from the proceedings before the Industrial Court is sought to be challenged on the ground that the grievance of the Respondent/Complainant relates to the adoption of the unfair labour practices by the employe...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arora Associates and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom477; 2003(4)ALLMR901; 2004(2)ARBLR18(Bom); 2004(1)BomCR871

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act the petitioner challenges the award made by the learned Arbitrator dated 16th Oct. 2000. By that award the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 24,96,493.70 with interest thereon to be calculated at the rate of 18% p.a. as from 13th Dec. 1996 till payment or realisation.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner invited tenders for carrying out work of resurfacing of Platform Nos. 4 and 5, at Pune Railway station. The respondent/ claimant had submitted their tender, which came to be accepted. Acceptance of the tender was communicated by letter dated 29th Nov. 1995. As per that letter the work was to commence from 29-11-1995. On 15-1-1996 a contract was entered into between the parties. The total value of the work which the respondent was to carry out was Rs. 5,04,374.87. According to the respondent after completion of the work allot...

Smt. Anjana D. Sawant, Judicial Magistrate First Class Vs. Baba Abdul ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR812

1. Heard Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fulzele, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.5. Other respondents though served, none appears for them.2. Contempt Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order, dated 4th/7th March, 1994, assed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000-00. It will be appropriate to consider the relevant facts and circumstances which have given rise to initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the appellant. Those are as follows :-3. On 31/5/1991 offences punishable under Sections 420, 392, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against respondents 1 to 3 vide Crime No. 218/91 at Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur, and Criminal Case No. 284 of 1991 was registered and the same was in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. The sum and substance of the prosecution case w...

Janata Rubber and Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tanks/Containers.In order to distinguish their goods from others, they obtained registration for a logo as "VR" for the goods and got the same registered with the Trade Marks Authority and used the same on the excisable goods cleared by them. The officers of the department visited the unit, checked the records and made out a case demanding duty by issue of Show Cause Notice dtd.31/01/1997, demanding duty for the period 1993/94, 1994/95, 1995/96, 1996-97 (upto December 1996). The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner, who confirmed the demands imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC and penalty on the company and fine in lieu of confiscation of plant, building and machinery. Hence this appeal. (a) The Commissioner has found that the brand name 'VR' is not owned by the appellants and was claimed to be of M/s. Versova Rubber, who are also manufacturers and fabricators of similar goods as was alleged in the Show Cause Notice. ...

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical) 1. Essar Steel Ltd., Hazira was engaged in the manufacture of hot briquetted iron, hot rolled coils and other products of iron and steel.The electricity required for running the mill was provided by Essar Power Ltd., Hazira located nearby, the power being generated by the turbines which were fuelled by natural gasoline liquid or naphtha.Essar Steel ltd. (ESL for short) purchased NGL and naphtha and supplied it to Essar Power Ltd. (EPL for short). it took the credit of the duty paid on the fuel after furnishing to the department the intimation to this effect required by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57F.2. The notice dated 2.5.2001 issued to ESL alleged that it had incorrectly taken credit to the extent of Rs. 24.55 crores during the period from April, 1996 to January, 2001 of the duty paid on quantities of NGL for the reason that it had not been consumed by EPL to produce electricity which was utilized, as required by the rules, in the manufacture of final pro...

Shree Warana Sahakari Dudh Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT465Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this matter, an application has been filed for rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Cental Excise Act, which was apparent on the record to rectify the defects in the Order dated 28.4.2001 passed by the Tribunal in Appeals E/2110/94 and E/496/95. The application arises in this way.2. The applicant manufactured malted foods at their plant at Amrutnagar, Maharashtra. They had an understanding with a company called Cadbury India Ltd. whereby the applicant had to manufacture Bournvita (final product) using the raw materials and packing materials supplied by the said Cadbury India Ltd. as per the recipe and specification given by the said Cadbury India Ltd. The applicant would be paid Rs. 3.75 per kg. for this activity. Show cause notice dated 21.10.1992 was issued to both Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. and Cadbury India Ltd. calling upon them to show cause why differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,01,20,771/- being the duty calculated on Cadbury produ...

Mmk Jewellers and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Facts in this bunch of 14 appeals are that the appellants are carrying on their business as Free Trade Zone units set up in Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ). The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of gold jewellery. In some of the cases, primary gold was imported by MMTC and it was sold to some of the appellants. In other cases, the appellants themselves imported the gold from abroad. Besides the gold, the appellants also imported mountings and findings for the purpose of manufacture and export of gold jewellery. Finding is nothing but a part of jewellery used in making jewellery. The examples of finding are clasps, hooks, pin backs, jump rings and ear-ring backs. Mounting is nothing but a piece of jewellery that is ready to have the gem stone set in it.2. The appellants claimed exemption under notifications 177/94-Cus and 196/87-Cus.3. The notification 177/94 provided inter alia in Clause 8 and 10 thereof as follows:- "(8) Gem and jewellery, i...