Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Epcos India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,89,827/- for the period 01/03/2001 to 30/09/2001 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the applicants are liable to pay duty of excise leviable on DTA clearances of metallised film capacitors and solar cell modules, etc., @ 50% of the each of the duties of customs leviable under the Customs Act, by computing the duty liability as per Notification 2/95 dated 04/01/1995. According to the applicants the duty amount should be equivalent to the 50% of the aggregate duties of customs and therefore they had paid duty correctly and that the differential duty demand was not sustainable.3. The applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver on merits in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Futura Polymers Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai 2003 (152) ELT 156 (Del.) wherein it was held that circular No. 512/91/93-...

The Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. Being a Co-operative Societ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR589; 2003(4)MhLj1043

P.C.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by Assistant Commissioner (I & M). Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operation, Government of India dated 29th November, 2002 (Exhibit-I). By the said communication, the General Manager of the Bharat Co-operative bank (Mumbai) Limited was informed that since the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank was held in October, 2000 under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'), which was in vogue and the term of office of the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Bank was for not exceeding three years' from the date of election under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the old Act, the term will come to an end on completion of three years.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Multi-State Co-operative Society. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 are the elected members of the Board of Directors. On October 2, 2000, t...

U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(90)ECC800; 2003(157)ELT267(Bom)

P.V. Hardas, J. 1. The petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the Order, dated 5th March 1999 [2000 (116) E.L.T. 296 Tri, to the extent the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal No. E/4388/95 and for quashing and setting aside the Order of the Tribunal, dated 16th October, 2001 [2002 (146) E.L.T. 303 Tri, to the extent it declined to restore the Appeal No. E/4388/95.2. The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of the appeal are set out hereunder : -The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is an undertaking of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner is engaged in the construction of bridges and other civil works all over India. As part of its construction activities, the petitioner sets up site/project offices at the site of construction and those site/project offices are temporary in nature and upon completion of the construction activities, such site/project offices are closed.3. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, by his Orde...

Pradipsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC382

R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of his wife under Sections 302, 498A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the charges, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also for subjecting the deceased to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was, however, acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to be hanged till death for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in addition he was also sentenced to undergo three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 3,000/ -, in default, R.I. for one year under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The period of detention in custody during trial was set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has forwarded the record to this Court for confirmation of sentence of death in term...

Shobha Wd/O Prakash Deshmukh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR464; 2004(1)MhLj951

S. A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Shri Gordey, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Doifode, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents.2. One Shri Prakash Shankarrao Deshmukh was granted Bhumidhari rights in nazul land, under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 on lease, The grant was in respect of Survey No. 98, which was in context of E-Class of land situated within the limits of the Municipal Council. The grant was on payment of premium of Rs. 13,800/-. The annual rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 450/- per annum with effect from 1969-70. The certificate itself stated that grant is subject to the provision of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 and rules made thereunder.3. The question is whether the Revenue Authorities were entitled under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to revise annual rent fixed at Rs. 450/-per annum in the year 1987 when the original assessment was made in 1965.4. The Sub Divisional Officer has in suo motu proceeding commencing from 26-6-1987 r...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Stp Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. STP Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, imported 21 tons of aluminium foil coated with bitumen. In the bill of entry that it presented for clearance of the goods, it declared the CIF value to be US$ 65,157.06. It has noted that the invoice accompanying the goods issued by Isoltema S.P.A., Italy, gave a discount of 70% on unit price of the goods. Following issue of notice on the ground that this discount was abnormally high, the Assistant Commissioner passed orders denying this discount and determined the assessable value accordingly.The importer appealed this order contending in the appeal that this was the standard discount available to all persons and producing before him certificate issued by Isoltema S.P.A., Italy, that discounts to this extent were being given to buyers elsewhere. Such discounts varied from 75 to 85% depending upon quantity and in the case of the respondent, it had not been extended on the ground that it had purchased 21 tons. The Commissioner (Appeals) accep...

Fluidtech Boilers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC59

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the exemption contained in entry 2 of the table to notification 10/87 of the goods manufactured by the appellant. The entry exempts from duty scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment (including computers) and other goods specified therein supplied to non-commercial institutions other than a hospital. The exemption is subject to the condition inter alia that the institution is registered with the Government of India in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in that department certifies in each case that the institution is not engaged in any commercial activity and that the goods are required for research purposes only. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed denial by the Assistant Commissioner of the exemption on the ground that this condition has not been complied wi...

Sharda Crimpers and JatIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed upon the manufacturer and Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon its partner arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). A duty demand of Rs. 97,683/- was confirmed on the ground that M/s. Sharda Crimpers had clandestinely removed crimped yarn without payment of duty and penalty equal to duty was imposed upon the company and a penalty was also imposed upon the partner. In the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) the matter was agitated and vide order dated 29/12/1999, he upheld the confirmation of duty demand and remanded the case of the Additional Commissioner to reconsider the imposition of penalty, sans 11AC. He remanded the appeal not only of M/s. Sharda Crimpers but also the appeal of the partner. In the adjudication order, giving rise to the present impugned order, the Joint Commissioner has stated that the order-in-original relating to imposition of penalty on the partner was not disturbed by the Com...

Phil Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of photographic products including Konica 135/36 exposure colour photographic film rolls, imported 4 consignments of Konica Plastic Canister and Canister Caps in May, 1996 under four separate bills of entry. The department was of the view that the goods were consumer goods and the capacity was less than 5 kgs., and therefore clearance required a specific import licence as otherwise the import was hit by the restriction contained at serial No. 2, Part II para 156 of the negative list of the 1992-97 Exim Policy. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation with option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 1,40,000/-, Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively and imposed penalties of Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs., Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- respectively. The lower appellate authority upheld the confiscation but reduced the fine to Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respect...

Pradeep Rathod and Cello Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT118Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to exemption contained in entry 25 of the table to notification 15/94 of two articles manufactured by Cello Household Appliances Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, and liability to penalty on it an on Pradeep Rathod, its director.2. The items in question consist of trolleys and racks made of plastic.The assessee had claimed their classification in heading 39.23 of the Tariff as household articles of plastic. The Commissioner has classified the goods in heading 94.03 as items of furniture.3. The trolley, which is sold either fitted with castors or without castors consists essentially of three or four columns about 40 cm length separating circular, or rectangular, on which articles can be kept. The appellant's contention is that it is more appropriately considered to be classifiable as a household article because it is bought and sold as household article and not as furniture. From its appearance in design, it seems that the item...