Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Kalpataru Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance duty of Rs. 3,32,240/- and penalty of Rs. 60,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import) who has held that stainless steel sheets and stainless steel coils totally valued at Rs. 21 lakhs, which were already released as per the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court prior to issue of show cause notice, were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 14,32,240/- (out of this amount, Rs. 11 lakhs already deposited as per the High Court's order has been appropriated, leaving a balance duty of Rs. 3,32,240/-) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- on the applicant herein. The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the goods had been cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. The applicants are not the importers of the goods but are purchasers. The explanation of the applicants that they had purchased duty paid goods cleared by M...

Pramila Bhalchandra Kotwal Vs. India United Mills No. 1, Unit of N.T.C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR438

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 30-6-203, passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint (ULP) No. 1091 of 2002 which was filed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that in the service records of the petitioner, her birth date was recorded only with reference to the year of her birth and there was no recording of the complete date of birth and that the same discloses the year 1943 only and therefore the petitioner could have been superannuated only on 31-12-2003 and not prior to that day. The contention, therefore, is that the petitioner has been illegally declared as superannuated on 31-12-2002. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the service records of the petitioner with the respondents clearly disclose the date of birth of the petitioner to be 1-1-1943.3. The Industrial Court on analysi...

Ramchandra S/O Bhikaji Jagtap Vs. Dudharam Langruji Padvekar Dead Thro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR990; 2004(1)MhLj278

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25.3.1988 passed by the appellate Court in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1983 dismissing the appeal as well as the cross-objections and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 31-10-1983 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 312 of 1979, by which the trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiff for possession partly and directed the original defendant/appellant to deliver the vacant possession of plot No. 94/1 as shown by letters K, Kh, G, Gh, ch, chh, Dh, D, Te, K in the map Ex.84 with costs.2. Brief facts are as under ;The property bearing plot Nos. 93 and 94 situated in Ward No. 3 at Jatpura, Block No. 60 recorded in the revenue records originally belonged to two brothers Lahu Walke and Bhiwa Walke. Parwati is the widow of Lahu and Wanmala is his daughter. Sumitra is the daughter of Bhiwa. Plot No. 94 was shown as one unit but in the revenue map of the said plot, two sub divisions, such as Plo...

Suhas Ganpat Kalzunkar Vs. Bayer (India) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1102Bom

D.Y. chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent waives service.2. The petitioner has instituted a complaint under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the Act'). The complaint has been instituted by the petitioner on behalf of himself and 29 other employees. A grievance is made in paragraph 4 of the Complaint in respect of a Scheme for Voluntary Retirement floated by the First Respondent in the year 1995. In paragraph 4, it has been averred that an atmosphere was created so as to lead to fear and apprehension in the minds of the workmen regarding closure of the Department. The Petitioner has averred that on March 27, 1995, he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement by filling up the prescribed form, but that he changed his mind on March 28, 1995. The contention of the petitioner is that: the General Manager of the ...

Amersey Damodar Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)335

ORDERS.V. Mehrotra, A.M.:This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Mumbai, dated 20-11-1996, and pertains to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The effective ground of appeal raised in the present appeal is that learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c). In the alternative ground it is submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in retaining 150 per cent of the tax as penalty as against 100 per cent leviable being the minimum.3. The assessing officer in detail examined the foreign travel expenses aggregating to Rs. 6,06,713 relating to the partners of the firm, i.e., Mr. and Mrs. Amersey who visited Canada and USA allegedly for the business purposes to contact parties at Canada and USA. After considering in detail the assessee's submissions, the assessing officer held that the foreign travel expenses were incurred for the purposes other than the business of the firm aft...

Association of Managements of Unaided P.M. and ors. Vs. State of Mah. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR180; 2004(2)BomCR208

ORDERShah J.1. On 31st October 2002 eleven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in the case of T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : AIR2003SC355 . A brief background as to how the matter was referred to eleven Judge Bench may be noticed. The Writ Petition No. 350 of 1993 filed by the Islamic Academy of Education and connected petitions were placed before a Bench of five Judges. As the Bench was prima facie of the opinion that Article 30 did not clothe a minority educational institution with the power to adopt its own method of selection and the correctness of the decision in St Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, : AIR1992SC1630 was doubted, it was directed that the questions that arose should be authoritatively answered by a larger Bench. These cases were then placed before a Bench of 7 Judge. The questions framed were recast and the Court directed that the matter be placed before a Bench of at least 11 Judges, as it was felt that in ...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Toshniwal Instruments

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In these cases the Addl.Commissioner of Central Excise had passed 14 Orders-in-Original on the same issue, rejecting 14 refund claims files by the assessees/respondents, against which appeals were preferred before the Commissioner(Appeals) who by a common order, set aside the adjudication orders and held that the assessees were eligible to refund. The Revenue initially filed one joint appeal against the impugned order within the statutory period of limitation; subsequently they were directed to file supplementary appeals along with applications for COD which have been made.2. Since the original appeal was a joint appeal, I condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals.4. Now I take up the appeals for hearing. The assessees had originally cleared conductivity meters under invoices on payment of duty for exhibition to customers and the machines were brought back to the factory after demonstration and declarations under Rule 173L were filed. The machines were reconditioned and...

Santosh TIn Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. We take up the department's appeal first. In appeal No.E/3079/98, the issue relates to eligibility of credit against endorsed bill of entry. It is the department's case that after issue of notification No.16/94 dated 31.3.94, the importers are required to issue invoices and credit cannot be taken on endorsed bills of entry.This is a case during the transition period, where the bill of entry is dated 23.3.94 prior to issue of the notification on 31.3.1994 and the credit has been taken thereafter on 18.4.94 and the date of endorsement has not been indicated. The credit was dis-allowed by the Assistant Commissioner but has been subsequently allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the department has come in appeal to the Tribunal.2.On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that in the following three cases, different Benches of the Tribunal have allowed credit on endorsed bills of entry.Superpax India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi-1997 (94) E.L.T.144 (T)Goyal ...

Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC381

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 27,702/- has been disallowed on (1) cement, (2) Acquat, Formulation, Biosite (Chemical items) and (3) H.S.S.Hand tap on the ground that these are not capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5000/- has been imposed. The period of dispute is May & June, 1996.2. I have heard Shri V.K. Jain, ld. C.A. for the appellants and Shri Uma Shankar, SDR for the Revenue and record my findings herein below:- Cement is used in civil construction work for laying foundation for setting up machines. In the assessees' own case (Order No.C.II/1384-90/WZB/2003 dated 13.6.03) capital goods credit has been extended to cement following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. [2001 (132) ELT 3 (S.C.) upholding the Tribunal's decision in which it was held that the definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q is very wide. The contention of the ld. SDR that building material used as raw material for co...

Telco Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein had imported Epple 37 Sealant the Thinner in August, 1996. The goods were treated as consumer goods and in the absence of specific import licence valid for such items in the Negative List in the Exim Policy, 1992-97, the Asstt. Commissioner of customs confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine in addition to duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating authority; hence this appeal by the importer.2. I have heard both sides. The goods are used for industrial application in the vehicle factory of the importer in the manufacture of Heavy Duty Engines and Turbines. The imported goods are Heat Resisting Sealing Compound along with Thinner which offers high resistance against hot oils and hot cooling liquid due to novel raw materials. The claim of the appellants is that they are appropriately classified under Customs Tariff Heading 38.14 allowed under Free IMport category and are not consumer goods as they do not...