Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Pichai Rakchue Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT927Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The officers at the Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai detained in June, 2002 a parcel consigned by Pichei Rakchue, Appellant in Appeal 378/2003 of Bangkok, Thailand to P. Kumar at Chennai, appellant in Appeal 347/2003. The parcel which declared to contain "fashion material" with no indication of value was found to contain 35,310 carats of zircon of synthetic, valued at Rs. 78.50 lakhs. P.Kumar after some delay appeared before the authorities in response to the summons and said that he had orally placed orders on Pichei Rakchue whom he met through Rajagopal, a broker for supply of imitation jewellery, ladies fancy items, etc. He denied having placed any orders on Rakchue for supply of zircon. Subsequently Rakchue wrote to the Customs in September, 2002 stating that the zircon had been sent to Kumar by mistake and asking for reshipment of the goods. Notice was issued to P. Kumar proposing confiscation of the zircon under Clauses (m) and (l) of Section 111 and proposing...

Apurva Aluminium Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of extruded articles of aluminium. Notice issued to it proposed to include in the value for assessment of such articles, dye development charges which were recovered by the appellant from the customers to whom it supplied these goods, on the ground that these charges were additional consideration for the goods. The assessee resisted the contention before the Deputy Commissioner. That authority however did not accept this contention and ordered inclusion of these charges in the value of the goods, and also imposed a penalty on the appellant. That order having been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us.2. Mr. Nunna Murli, General Manager of the appellant contends that these charges are nothing other than a deposit taken by the appellant from its customers in order to ensure that they did not cancel their orders, if this was done, the appellant would be saddled with the cost of developing the the for a p...

Sony Music Entertainment (India) Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 49,62,861/- and penalty of equal amount, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself as the issue in dispute has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case as seen from order No. C.II/1987/WZB/2003 dated 23.7.03.2. The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the activity of re-packing of imported pre-recorded audio compact discs in bare form and clearing the same in unit containers amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f), by an application of Note 6 to Section XVI.3. On hearing both sides, we feel that in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal in the order cited above held that the incidental activities carried out by the appellants do not constitute manufacture and hence duty was not payable on the discs cleared in unit containers.Paragraphs 9 of the Tribunal's order which ie relevant, is reproduced below: "It cannot be dis...

Nilam Trivedi Vs. University of Mumbai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR789; 2004(1)MhLj164

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2000 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal at Mumbai dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 18th August, 1999 issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The challenge is three-fold. Firstly, that the petitioner, being selected by following regular procedure for selection, was appointed on probation and her services being satisfactory could not have been abruptly terminated. Secondly, the petitioner having been appointed on regular basis prior to September, 1991, she was not required to undergo NET/SET Examination, and thirdly, that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated on the ground that she does not belong to reserved category unless the post itself was one that was meant for reserved category candidate as per the roster.3. As regard the first gr...

Mililab Private Limited and anr. Vs. Glemark Pharmaceuticals Limited a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR30

Bobde S.A., J.1. These notice of motions are taken out in what might be described as cross suits. The parties to the suit are not common, but the case in respect of which the injunctions are claimed in both the suits are the same i.e. a medicinal product called MILICAL-12. The plaintiffs in both the suits have taken out these motions for an injunction in accordance with the prayers in the main suits. In Suit No. 1603 of 2001, Mililab Private Limited has sought an injunction against the defendant i.e. Glemark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the trade mark MILICAL and for passing it off as theirs. In Suit No. 4901 of 2000, the defendant in Suit No. 1603 of 2001 i.e. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has made a prayer that the threats given by the defendant therein i.e. Milichem Laboratories should be treated as groundless threats and for an injunction restraining Milichem Laboratories from making such threats.SUIT NO. 1603 OF 2002:2. In this suit filed by Mililab Private Ltd., inter alia, fo...

Cce Vs. Continental Casting Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC341Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is a liability to duty on the prepared sand manufactured by the respondent to this appeal and utilised by it in the making of casting in the metal. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the benefit of the total exemption contained in notification 217/86 be available to the sand and therefore no duty would be payable.2. The appeal by the Commissioner relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Telco Ltd. v. CCE and SAIL v. CCE and the departmental representative reiterates this ground.3. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice and has not filed any submissions. In Telco Ltd. v. CCE the bench of the Tribunal has held that the process of preparing sand for use in a sand mould the process of coating of sand with resin results in a product which is marketable and the process amounts of manufacture. It held such goods liable to duty. The decision of the Tribunal in SAIL v. CCE does no...

Comteck Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT966Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged inter alia in the manufacture of a solution of sodium chloride. The solution was packed in plastic containers to be used as a drip. It claimed classification of the product in sub-heading 20 of Heading 30.03 of the tariff as an unpatented medicament. The notice issued by the department proposed to classify it in subheading 10 as a patented medicament on the ground that it bore upon it a symbol, comprising an octagon containing the word COMTECK. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal from the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the contention of the assessee that the container of the product did not in fact bear any such symbol. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders in which he said that the control samples of the product, which were kept by the assessee in compliance with the requirement of the rules under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 did not, on inspect...

Khandesh Extraction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT928Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty of Rs. 34,240/- has been demanded and penalty of Rs. 17,000/- imposed on the finding that the cinders which resulted in the burning of coal in the boilers of the applicant are liable to duty.2. The representative of the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Century Rayon & Anr., 2002 (142) E.L.T. 319, holding that such cinder is not excisable. The departmental representative contends that the Bombay High Court had relied upon a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. UOI, 2001 (131) E.L.T. 535 holding that cinder is not excisable and that stay of operation of this order had been stayed by the Supreme Court with regard to the particular assessee.3. That may be so, however, the assessee before us is within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, the appeal against the judgment of which has been dismissed by th...

Sai Ashish Dyg. and Ptg. Mills Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT190Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Counsel for the appellant in his letter has requested adjournment on the ground that his client has filed a civil petition in the High Court of Gujarat "which is an essential evidence in the above referred case" and on the further ground that his client is in High Court for important matter and therefore, he could not get any instruction and copy of the writ petition. We find it difficult to accept either of these claims. It is difficult to see how a writ petition filed before the High Court constitute evidence in an appeal before the Tribunal and no explanation as to this is forthcoming in the letter. It is also difficult to understand why the advocate for the applicant required assistance of the client to get the writ petition which he could himself have obtained from the High Court. It is also not possible to understand the significance of the instruction which it is stated could not be given by S.R. Patil because he was busy in the High Court. After all, the S.R. Patil would be...

Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT857Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common question for consideration in these two appeals is the eligibility to discount from the assessable value of paints and varnishes that the appellant manufactured.2. We have heard Mr. A. Fernandes, manager of the appellant, and the departmental representative.3. Among the four discounts under consideration, the representative of the appellant conceded that it did not have any claim for core commission and special deals. We are therefore left with bonus scheme and other dealer discount schemes. Mr. Fernandes explains the bonus scheme to be as follows. The scheme is decided by each of the branch managers of the appellant of whom there were about 50 at the relevant time, and is applicable to dealers located within the jurisdiction of each branch manager. The total quantity of bonus that can be paid from a particular branch is decided by the head office. Subject to these limits of the budget not being exceeded, it is the sole description of the branch manager to decide upon th...