Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Borax Morarjee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC158

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming the rejection by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Ambernath Division, in the order impugned in the appeal, the claim for refund of Customs duly filed by the appellant.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The application filed by Mr. A.S. Sahota, Consultant, "on behalf of the appellant" addressed an objection raised by the registry that legible typed copies of the order in original and order in appeal should be filed. It says that after receipt of the notice he tried to contact the appellant but could not do so and that since he is not appealing before the Tribunal for more than two years for medical reasons, the matter may be adjourned.3. I do not find it possible to adjourn. Firstly, there is no authority by the appellant for engaging Mr. Sahota. Secondly, if as Mr. Sahota claims, he has not been appearing before the Tribunal for more than two years for whatever reason, it would be expected th...

The Commissioner of Customs and Vs. JaIn Irrigation System Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has come in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, wherein he held:- "The Department in its appeal has stated that Addl. Commissioner has not considered the aspect of unjust enrichment and once duty was paid on inputs, which are consumed captively, the refund of duty would amount to unjust enrichment. The Addl. Commissioner should not have relied upon the decision of bombay High Court in the case M/s. Solar Pesticides case as an appeal filed by the department is pending in the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the assessee must have passed on the incidence of duty by fixing the price of their final product by taking into consideration the duty element paid on inputs. Both Appellants and respondents given an opportunity of hearing on 24/9/97 wherein the department was represented by Shri N.N. Shaikh, Supdt., but none appeared for the respondents. The respondents int heir cross objections have stated that the Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Solar...

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT594Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case the appellants are challenging the impugned order-in-appeal whereby part of the Modvat credit availed, has been denied to them. Heard both sides. The appellants, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd., received Diet Pepsi Concentrate falling under Heading No. 2108.10 of the Central Excise Tariff, under Invoice No. 887 dated 17.5.2000 from M/s. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd., Bharuch. The Bharuch unit had cleared the same on payment of Basic Excise Duty of Rs. 33370/- and Special Excise Duty of Rs. 50054/- totalling Rs. 83,424/-. The said clearance was in terms of provisions contained in Rule 57F (1) (ii) which requires that inputs cleared as such are permitted to be cleared on reversal of credit amount which is not less than the amount originally taken, at the time of receipt of such inputs in the factory. The appellants availed the entire credit of Rs. 83,424/- i.e. representing both the portions namely, basic as well as special. As per Sub-rule 1(2) of Rule 57 AB and Ru...

Sterlite Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants have been denied modvat credit on the grounds that the documents based on which the credit was availed are not eligible as:- i) Goods are free samples and bill of entry is in the name of the Head office of the appellants and in absence of any Customs declarations, credit not admissible. ii) Details of range, Division, Collectorate, mode of transport, time of issue of goods and other particular not shown. There is no doubt about the duty paid nature and or receipt of the inputs. a) The lower authority following the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Larsen and Turbo Ltd. {1994 (72) ELT 948} found that bill of entry would be eligible but travelled beyond the notice by holding that samples have not succeeded in relation to the manufacture which cannot be upheld. In any case the appellants centered that approximately 7.8 km of optical fiber cable can be made from the 78 km of Single Mode fiber cable received. The credit on documents at (i) in para 1 above cannot be de...

Noble Paints Private Limited (Formerly Known as Noble Paints and Varni ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR356; [2004(101)FLR27]; 2004(1)MhLj420

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. On a Reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court, by an Order dated 4th January 2003, directed the petitioner to reinstate the Respondent in service with continuity and full back wages. The employer is before the Court in these proceedings.3. The Respondent was appointed as a Chemist by the Petitioner by a letter dated 1st June 1995. The contention of the Respondent before the Labour Court was that on 1st July 1997, he reported for work but, the Security Guard did not allow him to enter the premises. From the evidence of the Respondent, it would appear that on 29th June 1997, while the Respondent was on duty, there was an altercation with the Supervisor in regard to the decision of the employer to treat the leave of the Respondent between 24th April 1997 and 15th May 1997 as lea...

Nandini Mehta, Proprietor of Layovak Laboratories Vs. Shri Amol Kate a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR96

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21-3-2003, passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No. 253 of 1989 holding that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper.3. Placing reliance in the decisions in the matter of State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma, reported in 1996 SCC (L&S;) 717, State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.V. Perumal and Ors., reported in 1996 2 CLR 519, Hawaldar Singh v. Taigrania Metal & Steel Industries and Ors., reported in 2000 2 CLR 452, Ravindra Umesh Gokran and Ors. v. Guest Keen Williams Limited and Ors., reported in 1992 2 LLJ 847, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ashokan K.K. and Anr., reported in 1999 1 CLR 2 and K.M. Sarpabhushana Swamy v. Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bellary and Ors., reported in 1997 1 CLR 93, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, drawing attention to the Clause ...

Prakash D. Shah, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Ministry of Fina ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR647; (2004)ILLJ943Bom; 2004(1)MhLj1043

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 6-2-2001, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai under the Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The challenge is on two grounds, namely, that the partner working in the firm cannot be construed as the employee of the firm, and secondly, that the authority erred in misconstruing the amended provision regarding the infancy period in as much as though the firm of the petitioners having been established prior to amendment to the Section 16(1)(d) of the said Act, whereby the infancy period was of three years, the petitioners could not have been denied the exemption from the provisions of the said Act for a period of three years from the date of its inception merely because during the subsistence of the said period of three years the Section 16(1)(d) of the said Act was amended,...

Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR109; 2004(3)BomCR237; 2004(1)MhLj883

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Ms. Dangre, A.G.P. waives service for respondents. Rule is heard finally by consent of the parties at this stage.2. On 20th September, 2002, at Nari Saoner Road, Nagpur, Excavator (Heavy Earth Mover) being Model No. 2021, Serial No. 20212379 having Chassis No. 81016314/13, FIF 409 FD 12/97, was seized by the Regional Transport Officer, Nagpur. The said Excavator belongs to the petitioner --Western Coalfields Ltd. It was going from Silewara to Nagpur (Godhani) and upon demand, the driver of the said Excavator failed to produce valid documents. In the opinion of the Regional Transport Officer, Nagpur, said Excavator was 'motor vehicle' and, accordingly, it was detained for want of valid documents. The seizure of the said Excavator has led to the filing of this writ petition. It is prayed that it be declared that the Heavy Earth Moving Machineries owned by the petitioner are not the 'motor vehicle' as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, ...

Air India Limited Vs. A.J. Texeria and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR93

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The short point for consideration which arises in the matter is as to whether the Tribunal could have directed the payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency and till the disposal of the approval application. In that regard, undisputedly, the Division Bench in an unreported decision in the matter of Air India Limited v. Mr. Libio Francisco Colaco & another, Appeal Stamp No. 351 of 2003, along with other appeals and writ petitions delivered on 30-6-2003, has clearly held that:---'Broadly the cases in the Tribunal could be categorised in three categories. As far as the first category of cases is concerned, they are cases in which a workman is dismissed for misconduct after due inquiry and on scrutiny by the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, also the inquiry is found to be valid. In such cases, there would be no justification for provi...

Dhanlaxmi Garments Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT390Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 30,37,059/- and penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed upon M/s. Dhanlaxmi Garments Pvt.Ltd., and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed upon its Director arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat, by which he has confiscated 47956 yards of imported processed fabrics found in excess in the factory of Dhanlaxmi Garments Pvt. Ltd., with option to redeem the same on payment of fine along with payment of duty as mentioned above on clearances of the fabrics and imposed penalties for contravention of relevant rules of the amounts set out herein above.2. We have heard both sides. The issue of waiver of pre-deposit of duty does not arise at this stage as the goods are still in the custody of customs authorities and have not been cleared by the applicants.Therefore we are confining our order to waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The submission of the applicants that this excess detected is required to be se...