Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Uttam Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR829; 2003LC898(Bombay); 2003(158)ELT274(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj497

V.C. Daga, J.1. The short question sought to be raised in this petition relates to an interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) which came to be amended with effect from 12th May, 2002.Factual background The factual background giving rise to the present petition is in narrow compass:2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting steel products including galvanized corrugated sheets to 120 countries. In respect of exports affected from time to time, the petitioners filed rebate claims for a rebate of central excise duty paid in respect of the exported goods.3. The present petition is concerned with two shipments of goods which were exported in 1999 and in respect whereof the petitioners claimed rebate. The petitioners exported galvanized corrugated sheets under shipping bills dated 20th May, 1999 and 10th June, 1999 and filed refund claim along with supporting documents to substantiate the...

Shreyans Industries Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj50

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Dhote, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, states that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of price of goods sold by the appellant to the respondents/defendants. The appellant is manufacture of super enameled copper wire. The respondent No. 2 invited tenders for supply of copper wire. The appellant's offer was accepted and order was placed. As per agreement between parties, goods were to be dispatched by train and documents were to be submitted through Bank. It is contended that 95% of the price was to be paid while getting documents realised from the Bank and 5% amount was to be paid within thirty days on inspection of goods. It is submitted that appellant supplied goods worth Rs. 88,93,704.06 and as against that, defendants made payment of Rs. 83,16,145.15 ...

Hemantkumar Haribhau Pawar and ors. Vs. Rajusing Chudaman Rathod

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj379

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Admit. Heard finally the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the non-applicant, by consent.2. This is a civil revision application filed by tenant-members of Cooperative society - Swami Vivekanand Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd., Pusad (hereinafter referred to as 'society'). The suit property is a house situated on Plot No. A-47. The revision-petitioner is undoubtedly, an allottee of the suit property on rent. The suit property was constructed by raising loan from the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This loan was raised by the plaintiff through the society.3. After obtaining the loan, the plaintiff executed the mortgage-deed dated 21-12-1976 in favour of the Finance Corporation. The construction of the house over plot was completed in January 1979. Admittedly, the loan has been entirely repaid. However, the rent was Rs. 150/- per month. The society runs into trouble and the liquidator was appointed on it. The petitioner, who ...

MRF Ltd. Vs. Goa MRF Employees' Union and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ394Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The appellant employer has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated May 2, 2003. The question formulated by the learned Judge for consideration was as under:'Does the Industrial Tribunal have the power to grant the reliefs including in the nature of injunction in a complaint filed before it under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?'The learned Judge has answered the same in the affirmative.2. A few facts may be set out. There were disputes between the parties which were taken up in conciliation including Charter of Demands. The respondent No. 1 is a registered Union whose members are the workmen employed with the appellant herein. Settlement arrived at between the employer and the workmen was due to expire on September 30, 1995. The respondent No. 1 herein had served the notice of termination of settlement on July 29, 1995. On February 15, 1996, respondent No. 1 served a Charter of Demands. The appellan...

Sou. Surekha Sandip Hajare Vs. Instacomp and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1687

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, in the matter of Regular Criminal Case No. 402/1996, by which he acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred as Negotiable Instruments Act for convenience).2. The prosecution case, in brief; is that respondent No. 1, happens to be the partner of Instacomp, a firm dealing in computers and auxiliary parts for performance of the computers. It is alleged by the appellant that she purchased a printer from respondent No. 1 for Rs. 35,000/-. She paid Rs. 5000/- in cash for which voucher bearing No. 586 was issued, vide voucher No. 585 acknowledgment of payment of Rs. 25,000/-was vouchered. On 12-10-1995 Rs. 5000/-were given already. Thus, the said amount of Rs. 35,000/- were accounted for. The appellant used that printer for some days and ther...

Sou Surekha Sandip Hajare Vs. Instacomp Through a Partner Shri Sanjeev ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)BC33

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, in the matter of Regular Criminal Case No. 402/1996, by which he acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as Negotiable Instruments Act for convenience).2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No. 1, happens to be the partner of Instacomp, a firm dealing in computers and auxiliary parts for performance of the computers. It is alleged by the appellant that she purchased a printer from respondent No. 1 for Rs. 35,000/-. She paid Rs. 5,000/- in cash for which voucher bearing No. 586 was issued, vide Voucher No. 585 acknowledgement of payment of Rs. 25,000/- was vouchered. On 12.10.1995 Rs. 5,000/- were accounted for. The appellant used that printer for some days and thereafter as the said printer was not properly function...

B.R. Herman and Mohatta (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)341

ORDERS.C. Tiwari, A.M.As there are certain common and inter-related issues involved in these four appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue, they were argued together by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned departmental Representative, and are being decided by this consolidated order for convenience.2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 3373/Bom/1993 and 3374/Bom/1993 have been filed by the assessee on 17-5-1993, against orders under section 263 made by the learned Commissioner(Central-II), Bombay, on 15-3-1993, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. Appeals in ITA Nos. 6382/Bom/1995 and 6383/Bom/1995 have been filed by the revenue on 3-7-1995, against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-Central IV, Bombay, dated 23-3-1995, in the case of the assessee in relation to orders under section 143(3) read with section 263 made by the assessing officer for assessment years 19...

Aren Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver or pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,74,352/- (E/82/2003), Rs. 1,87,500/- (E/822/2003) and Rs. 2,30,592/- (E/823/2003), totalling Rs. 6,92,444/-, confirmed on electrical items such as electrical control panels, parts of electrical panels, etc., we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeals themselves at this stage. Hence after waiving pre-deposit of the duty, we proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.3. We find that the duty demand has been raised and confirmed as a result of denial of SSI exemption benefit under Notification 1/93-CE dated 28/02/1993 by holding that the value of clearances of M/s. Aren Engineers is to be clubbed with the clearances of M/s. Aree Electricals and Engineering and M/s. Arc Electronics and Research Corporation. This issue was the subject matter of appeal Nos. E/798/88-A, E/2639/88-A and E/2640/88-A which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hardcastle and Waud Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT845Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for rectification of mistake arises out of the final order of the Tribunal [2003 (152) E.L.T. 63 (Tri. - Mumbai)] holding that the material on record is not sufficient to establish that the goods in question are otherwise those that declared, and hence, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.2. It is brought to our notice by the ld. SDR that the Chief Chemist has clearly stated in his report dated 28-5-92 that "each is modified phenolic resin and cannot be considered as phenol formaldehyde resin" and that the abstract of the Commissioner's order was furnished to the assessees and the Deputy Chief Chemist's report was not the only material on the basis of which, the authorities below held that the product is not phenol formaldehyde resin as claimed by the assessee. He therefore, prays that the impugned order may be upheld, as the chemical reports are sufficient to establish that the goods are other than as declared.3. We have perused the records. W...

Century Enka Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the common order passed disposing of three appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the invoice issued by supplier of various inputs to the appellant were not valid for taking credit because it does not confirm to the requirement in the rules that they should contain a printed serial number, as the serial numbers were handwritten.2. Mr. S.G. Bangad, the Deputy General Manager of the appellant says that in its actuality 3 out of 23 invoices had on them typed serial numbers. According to him these were invoice number 211, 222 and 248 issued in May 1995 by Akash Plastics, Pune. These were invoice figures in the annexure to the notice dated 1.3.96 issued to the appellant, the date of invoice 211 is showed to be 8.5.95 in the notice where as it is actually dated 19.8.1995. However, the amount of credit (Rs. 3822.59) and the entry number of the RG23A account 3543 tally. The date of the invoice shown in the notice is clearly an error. There is a slight discrepancy with regard ...