Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Matraco (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(162)ELT1192(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioners by the present petition seek to challenge validity and constitutionality of a public notice No. 82(ITC)/PN/88-91, dated 29th November, 1988 and Para 5 of Appendix 6 of Import and Export Policy April, 1988 - March, 1991 ('said Policy' for short) and the order-in-original dated 23rd March, 1989 as well as the order of respondent No. 3, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT' for short); whereby the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced from Rs. 9 lakhs to Rs. 4.5 lakhs holding that the petitioners were entitled to a benefit of doubt on the facts and circumstances of the case.FACTS :2. The brief facts leading to the petition are as under :The petitioners are a company engaged in the import of several items. In or about September, 1988, one Mr. Ashok Gupta, Director of the petitioner-company visited Hong Kong for the purpose of business and placed an order with M/s. Easmesco International Corporation, Hong Kong (herei...

Matraco (India) Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR80

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioners by the present petition seek to challenge validity and constitutionality of a Public Notice No. 82 (ITC)/PN/88-91 dated 29th November, 1988 and para 5 of Appendix-6 of Import and Export Policy April 1988-March 1991 ('said policy' for short) and the order in original dated 23rd March, 1989 as well as the order of respondent No. 3, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT' for short); whereby the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced from Rs. 9 lakh to Rs. 4.5 lakh holding that the petitioners were entitled to a benefit of doubt on the facts and circumstances of the case.FACTS:2. The brief facts leading to the petition are as under:The petitioners are a company engaged in the import of several items. In or about September 1988, one Mr. Ashok Gupta, Director of the petitioner company visited Hong Kong for the purpose of business and placed an order with M/s. Easmesco International Corporation, Hong Kong (hereinafter re...

Sau. Suvarna Prakash Patil Vs. Anil Hindurao Powar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR61; [2003]132STC539(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The only question that arises in this Petition is: whether the Respondents 1 to 5 herein could have participated in the meeting held on 18th December, 2001, to decide the No Confidence Motion, in pursuance of notice dated 12th December, 2001, as they had incurred disqualification under Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), being defaulters? Indeed, in the companion Writ Petition No. 2924 of 2003, the Respondents have been held to be defaulters at the relevant time and therefore disqualified, but having regard to the express provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, so long as the question is not decided by the Collector, the member shall not be disabled under Sub-section (1) of that provision to be a member. If that is the express statutory provision, then obviously the Respondents 1 to 5 though were defaulters at the relevant time even then so long as the issue as to whether they have incurred...

Shivshankar Dudh Vyavsayek Va Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit and anr. Vs. St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj779

A. P. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the two Co-operative (Milk) Societies registered under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Societies Act'). The petitioner societies are classified as Agricultural Societies and are the member societies of the respondent No. 5 Society, by name, Tuljabhavani Zilla and Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Va Prakriya Sangh Ltd., Osmanabad. It is the case of the petitioners that they are supplying milk to the respondent No. 5 Sangh since their formation, they being member societies of respondent No. 5 and are bound to supply milk under the bye-laws. The respondent No. 5 is a registered society having its registration since the year 1982 and the area of operation of respondent No. 5 is of 7 talukas by name, Osmanabad, Kallamb, Paranda, Umarga, Washi, Lohara and Tuljapur. The bye-laws of the respondent No. 5 ...

Sou. Suvarna Prakash Patil Vs. Anil Hindurao Powar,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR767

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition is essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, taking exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division dated March 31, 2003 in Appeal No. 8 of 2002. And I propose to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 227, although in the title of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has described the Petition as one under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as this Petition is filed only between the private parties and no State Agency has been made party herein.2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was elected as member of Nebapur Gram Panchayat, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur on 18th August, 2000. The Respondents were also elected as members of the same Gram Panchayat along with the Petitioner. The Petitioner was later on elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat.3. The present Petition emanates from the proceedings which were commenced at the instance of the Petitioner, pu...

Mohan Rocky Springwater Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this Order since the issue involved in them is the same. The issue is whether 'WORT' which comes into existence, during the Brewing of 'Beer' in a Brewery which the appellants are engaged in, would be classified under heading 1901.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. This 'WORT' which is captively consumed after it comes into existence in the Composite Brewery could be charged to duty under the Central Excise Act.2. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record it is found a) The 'WORT' is an intermediate product. The Show-cause notices issued in both these cases, do not bring out any material to indicate how the intermediate product 'WORT' is marketable. It is now well settled that for levy of duty under the Central Excise Act 1944 on an intermediate product, establishing it's marketability is essential. The Apex Court in the case of Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., v. CCE Vadodara (2003 (152) ELT 252 SC had held that...

Emmellen Biotech Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT172Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, took in April and May 2000 the credit under Rule 57Q of the entire duty paid on pipes and pipe fittings brought into its factory.Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57AC prohibited the manufacturer from taking as credit more than half of the duty paid on the capital goods in the financial year in which the goods were received, deferring taking of credit of the remaining amount to subsequent financial year. The appellant realising its mistake reversed in September 2000 half of the credit that it had earlier taken and also advised the department of its action. This resulted in issue of notice to the appellant proposing recovery of the credit wrongly taken and penalty under rule 173A and recovered interest under Rule 11AA. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the liability to credit but off set the reversal made by the appellant, imposed a penalty and demanded interest under Section 11AA. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (...

Bharat Vijay Iron Factory and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 21,00,300/- and directed the balance amount to be recovered from M/s.Bharat Vijay Iron Factory and also imposed a penalty on them of equal amount, in addition to imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the authorised signatory of M/s. Bharat Vijay Iron Factory. The ground for confirmation of the duty is that the appellants took credit on goods described as coils in the invoice, while what they received was sheets.In other words, the main charge against the appellants is that there is no correlation between the inputs supplied and the form in which the inputs reached their factory.2. On hearing both sides, we note that in cases involving identical issue, the Tribunal has decided the issue vide order No. C-II/4433 to 4456/WZB dated 31.12.2002 (Dhimant Trading Co. and Ors.). The Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed upon the dealers. As regards the manufac...

Anil Chemical and Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT759Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant is having two plans at Plot No. 48 and 49, situated at Waidhan, Distt. Sidhi, MP. At Plot No. 48, they are manufacturing Emulsion Matrix and Plot No. 49 is used for storing Duty paid Prilled Ammonium Nitrate (hereinafter referred to as PAN). Both the units are independently registered as factory with the Department of Industries and both the premises are separately registered with Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and has separate electricity connection granted by MPSEB.For entering into Plot No. 48, passage through Plot No. 49 is being used. The passage has been made on the de-registered area, and the said area is not included in area belonging to Plot No. 48 or Plot No. 49.2. Appellant being manufacturer of explosives, is registered with Department of Explosives. In the Explosive licence issued by Department of Explosives, Plot No. 49 has been declared as support plant, which includes specifically designed vehicle known as Bulk Delivery Systems (BDS). BDS has three independe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. K.K. Nag Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT161Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is aggrieved by the credit allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on transformers, by holding the same to be an integral part of plant and machinery and by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur v. Indian Rayons - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 381 on the grounds :- (i) The word 'plant' as used in Rule 57Q, Explanation (1)(a) has to be construed and limited to things specified in the rule. (ii) Transformer does not fall under the Category of machine, machinery, plant and equipment and is not part of plant, which is used in producing, processing or bringing out any change in any goods. The use is only to regularise electricity supply and it does not take part in producing or processing goods. (iii) Transformer received prior to 16-3-1995 and transformer only with cables, etc., was not held to be capital goods by Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jam Shri Ranjit Singh Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. vide order No. 1274/96-WRB. Hence this appeal.2. Hea...