Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Dattaraj Janraoji Nimkar and ors. Vs. Swargiya Sakharamji Shikshan San ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR306; 2004(1)MhLj516

S. B. Deshmukh, J. 1. The petitioners, whose services stand terminated on account of derecognition of Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, a Secondary School (for Girls) run by the respondent No. 1, seek to challenge the vires of Rule 25(A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules of 1981' for short) by filing this petition in this Court, along with some ancillary reliefs.2. Though the constitutional validity of Rule 25(A) of the said Rules of 1981, principally, is challenged in this petition, to understand the controversy for the said reliefs, few facts relevant need to be stated as under:--Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, Kalmeshwar, tahsil Kalmeshwar, district Nagpur, was established by the respondent No. 1 Swargiya Sakharamji Shikshan Sanstha (hereafter referred to as 'the Management' for short) which is a registered Public Trust, also registered as Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. T...

Dr. Sharadchandra Malharrao Ajinkya Since Deceased Through Legal Repre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR134; (2004)106BOMLR743

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27th June, 1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No. 33/1987.2. The petitioners claim to be owners in respect of land admeasuring 1 guntha out of Survey No. 124 and 6 gunthas out of Survey No. 125, both situated at Uttan, district Thane. The respondent filed application for declaration that he was cultivating the suit lands as tenant since prior to the tillers' day. That application has been decided ex parte against the petitioners on the premise that inspite of notice of the proceedings, none appeared for the landlord. The Tahsildar, by judgment and order dated 25th December, 1983, allowed the application preferred by the respondent-tenant. Against this decision, the petitioners filed appeal on 20th August, 1985. According to the Petitioners, they were not informed about the decision passed by the Tahsildar and that fact ...

Tivoli Investment and Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]90ITD163(Mum)

ASSESSMENTFailure of successor assessing officer to give notice of hearing to assesseeCatch Note:The assessee's case was transferred under section 127 to one assessing officer to another assessing officer which was in knowledge of assessee. The predecessor assessing officer gave several opportunities to assessee for completing assessment. However, on transfer successor assessing officer start the framing of assessment from the stage where it was left by the predecessor and framed the assessment under section 144 without giving fresh notice to assessee. The assessee challenged the same. On facts of the case, the failure of successor assessing officer to give notice of hearing to assessee would not invalidate the best assessment order framed under section 144 but only a supervening irregularity which is cured by first appellate authority on remanding the issue to successor assessing officer for re doing the same after affording hearing opportunity to assessee.Ratio:On facts of the case,...

Ganesh Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT972Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant is a steel rolling mills. By an order passed on 22.6.1999, the Asst. Commissioner informed the assessee that its annual production capacity determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 being less than the production in 1996-97, the production of that year was determined to be its annual capacity in terms of Rule 5. The assessee did not appeal this order. It also did not pay duty as determined by this order. It is claimed that it paid duty in accordance with the capacity fixed by applying Rule 3. Notice was subsequently issued to the assessee demanding duty short paid and the Asst.Commissioner passed orders confirming the duty liability which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal and the application.2. The representative of the applicant contends that the provision of Rule 5 should not have been applied, relying for this purpose upon the decision of the la...

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 8,88,716/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage, with the consent of both sides.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant herein had imported certain inputs for utilisation in the manufacture of goods, which they exported towards fulfilment of export obligation against an advance licence issued under the VABAL scheme. They availed input stage credit, which was contrary to condition No. V(a) of Notification 203/92-Cus dated 19/05/92 under which the inputs were imported duty free. However, they have reversed/paid back the modvat amount of Rs. 3,19,621/-. They were not in a position to correlate the records with the goods exported under the relevant shipping bills, through which they exported their final products, in the manufacture of which duty free inputs were imported by them. It is on the ground of failure of the appellants to produce evidence regarding r...

RamnaraIn and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT308Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Ramnarain & Co. tendered three shipping bills for export of cut and polished synthetic stones. Examination of the consignment lead the officers to conclude that the goods were rough synthetic stone and not cut and polished as declared by the exporters. The value declared of the goods was also much lower than what was declared. Notice issued to the exporter alleged that the total value of three consignments tendered for export sought to be exported should be around Rs. 3 lakhs instead of the declared value totalling Rs. 90,92,074/-. Amendment of the value and confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of the Section 113 of the Act was proposed. Penalty was also proposed on Ashok Kumar Gupta, the partner of the exporter. After considering the submissions made by the exporter and its partner and hearing them, the Commissioner has passed orders ordering confiscation of the goods, permitting them to be cleared on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- e...

intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon the Director of M/s. Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. liner agent, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs Kanlda.2. The case of the Revenue is that certain fictitious firms had imported consignments described in the invoices and the relevant shipping documents as Polyester Pile Fabrics, which were in fact Velvet Pile Fabrics, thereby resulting in mis-declaration of qualify and quantity of goods imported. Penalty on the applicant has been imposed under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground inter-alia that he processed an application for re-export of the goods as per the directions of his counterpart at Dubai on the basis of advice received from shippers/consignors and have also sought amendments in the name of the three consignees, which made it clear that he had knowledge that the consignments in question we are liable to confiscation.3. We have heard ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Abbot Laboratories

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Abbot Laboratories, the respondent to this appeal was engaged in the manufacture of medicaments. Some of the medicaments that it manufactured was packed in plastic bottles which were manufactured and supplied to it by Interpack Containers. The manufacturer of the bottles took credit of the duty paid on plastic raw materials required for their manufacture from utilising towards payment of duty on the bottles. Abbot Laboratories in turn took credit of the duty paid by Interpack Containers on the bottles. Notice issued to Abbot Laboratories proposed to deny the credit taken by it on the ground that the plastic bottles were fully exempted from duty by virtue of entry 37 of the table to notification 14/92 and therefore Interpack Containers could not have availed of the modvat facility in respect of these bottles. Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner was of the view that the exemption contained in entry 37 of the table to notification gave a manufacturer an option to pay duty or ...

Modern Denim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute in these appeals relates to rate of duty in respect of DTA clearances made by an EOU. The period involved is September 196 to December 1996, January 1997 to June 1997 and July 1997 to December 1997. Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prior to its amendment in 2000 read as follows:- "Provided that the duties of excise which shall be levied and collected on any excisable goods which are produced or manufactured,- (ii) by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking and allowed to be sold in India, shall be an amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1982 (52 of 1962), on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India, and where the said duties of customs are chargeable by reference to their value; the value of such excisable goods shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, be determined in accordan...

Essel Propack Ltd., Ramesh Raman, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member(J) 1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed varying amounts of differential duty and also imposed penalties both upon M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. as well as individuals such as its general manager, commercial manager etc.2. At the outset, we note that the issue in dispute is as to whether the assessee was entitled to take differential credit under Rule 57E.The ground for denial of the credit resulting in the confirmation of the duty demand is that the demand has arisen on account of fraud, misrepresentation etc. The learned Chartered Accountant brings to our notice that the original duty demand was not confirmed on the ground of fraud, wilful misrepresentation etc. and he also brings to our notice a copy of bench order No. C-III/444 to 447/WZB/2003 dated 12.3.2003 wherein the main duty demand has been noted as having been paid and it is also noted that Rs. 10 lakhs was deposited pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court's direction, le...