Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Computility Computers Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported one IBM 5360 (system-36 computer), one IBM Printer, one IBM Matrix Printer, and 23 Display units which were supplied by M/s. Mega K. Co., USA and were shipped from Netherland. The invoice value was f.o.b. US Dollars 78700/- and actual freight and insurance as applicable, the c.i.f. value declared was Rs. 10,00,857/-, Bill of entry was filed on 26.10.1985 at Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai for the clearance of above said system.2. The goods were examined twice, first when the Customs officer in the Import Cargo Shed had conducted the mandatory examination and second time by an expert from M/s. CMC Ltd., the Government of India undertaking and following two objections were raised- (i) IBM Matrix Printer a part of the goods under import was old and used. (ii) The value declared was low. Reliance was placed on an import of a similar model imported by Bank of America, Mumbai at the f.o.b. value of US dollars 98,140.40 and the value therefore should be worked out to Rs....

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Arlabs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Certain chemicals were cleared to a L-6 holder by therein, a manufacturer of excisable goods, on a CT-3 certificate issued. Duty as per Notification No. 43/88 was discharged. Subsequently it transpired that the permission was given by mistake to the L-6 holder by the Central Excise Officers and the clearance was not covered under Notification No. 43/88. The CT-2 certificate issued to M/s. Calac Pvt Ltd., the manufacture of intermediate product was found to be wrong.The lower authority confirmed the demands under Rule 9 (2) made on the respondents, the L-4 licence holder, along with a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q on them. "I have gone through the submissions of the appellants. The Addl. Collector has confirmed the demand of duty against the appellants, manufacture of the goods, on the ground that Notification No. 43/88 did not grant an exemption from payment of duty if OPD was used in the manufacture of 2-HQ. It is observed from the CT-2 certificate that it was mentioned th...

Aarti Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assistant Commissioner in which he has ordered confiscation of 250 kilogram of niacinamide manufactured and cleared by the appellant (with an option to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs 20000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs 5000/-.2. I am unable to accept the request for adjournment on the ground that the advocate of the appellant is out of station. No vakalamama or other evidence of an advocate engaged, has been produced. I have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and also heard the departmental representative.3. The reason for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty was that the goods were being carried without a valid gate pass as required by Rule 52A. The Assistant Commissioner FINDS, in his order, that duty had been paid on the goods and the gate pass issued prior to their removal from the factory, but it could not accompany t...

Sanjeev G. Devre and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR75; 2004(4)BomCR302; 2004(2)MhLj103

1. By consent, taken up for final hearing.2. Is this a case of a biological miracle where respondent Nos. 4 to 38, all adult employees promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Excise, have grown in physical height in some cases in as much as 8 centimeters after their employment? Or is this a plain case of a fraud committed by them with the aid of medical Officers for the purpose of getting promotion without possessing necessary physical qualification required for the post? - is what the government wants to enquire into. Is it prevented from doing so by reason of several orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short M.A.T.) is the question which arises for our consideration in this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The facts giving rise to the petition may be briefly stated thus:-The petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 38 were employed either as clerks or constables, in the State Excise Department of State of Maharashtra, 50% of the posts of S...

Godavari Foundation Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR882; 2004(2)BomCR724; 2004(1)MhLj105

A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. The learned counsel for petitioner prays for deletion of respondent No. 2. Prayer granted. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is an Educational Institution registered and governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and Societies Registration Act. The petitioner manages and administers various educational institutions and being desirous of opening a new B.Sc. Nursing College at Jalgaon, made an application the respondent No. 3 - the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Health University'). The Health University is expected to scrutinize the proposal and forward the same to the State Government. The Health University did not favourably recommend the opening of the Nursing College by the petitioner. Despite the same, the State Govt. proceeded to grant permission in exercise of its powers contained in the proviso to Sub-section (5)...

Jayant Chudaman Nitnavare Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR244; 2004(4)BomCR298; 2004(1)MhLj301

R.M. Lodha. J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Parchure, Advocate waives notice for the respondent. By consent, Rule is heard finally at this stage.2. Jayant Chudaman Nitnavare is the petitioner before us and his prayer is for setting aside the communication dated 15th July, 2003, issued by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur, through its Divisional Secretary (for short, the 'Divisional Board'), and for further direction to the Divisional Board to give him benefit of grace marks upto seventeen marks in the subject Mathematics and by adding the said grace marks, declare the petitioner as successful in the S.S.C. Examination held in March 2003.3. Jayant appeared for Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted in the month of March, 2003. The result of the said examination was declared on 22nd June, 2003. He was declared as failed in the S.S.C. examination, as he secured only 35 marks in the subject of Mathematics. He secured about 48.66% mar...

Kunwar Sen JaIn Vs. Secretary, Textiles Committee, Government of India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR770]; (2004)IIILLJ131Bom; 2004(2)MhLj249

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The short question which arises for determination before us in this Writ Petition is whether the disciplinary authority can differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer only on the grounds that senior officers would not unnecessarily indict a subordinate with their evidence and whether an explanation given by the delinquent employee as answer to the show cause notice for imposing a minor penalty can be rejected and the punishment of a major penalty can be imposed.2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as follows :The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in the Textile Committee established on 14-3-1977. He was suspended from duty and a chargesheet was issued to him on 15-5-1978 containing two articles of charge. The first charge against the petitioner was that he had certified cotton handloom readymade garments without physically inspecting this material. The second charge against the petitioner was that he had failed to maintain absolute integ...

Nivrutti Gangaram Pawar, Since Deceased, Through His Heirs and Lrs Pra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR193; 2004(2)MhLj674

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This is yet another matter where the petty and small landlord has been waiting for the fruits of the statutory protection given to such landlords since 1962. The matter has been swinging like pendulum from one authority to another since 1964. Briefly stated, the predecessor of the petitioners was the owner in respect of suit lands Survey No. 619/2 and 619/3, admeasuring 1 acre 5 gunthas and 1 acre 4 gunthas respectively, situated at Village Karadi, Taluka Khatau, District Satara. The said Nivrutti Gangaram Pawar predecessors of the petitioner had filed an application for issuance of certificate under Section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appropriate authority allowed the said application, presumably on January 27, 1961. On the basis of that decision, Certificate under Section 88-C came to be issued in favour of Nivrutti Gangaram Pawar on 23rd June 1964. The consequence of issuance of such a ...

Cce Vs. Ran Chemiclas Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC804Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue relates the eligibility of modvat credit on capital goods i.e. 'Transforms'.2. The issue is now well settled. The word "plant" used in the definition of capital under Rule 57-Q cannot be construed in a limited fashion in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Valley Abrasives Ltd. v. CCE . The department's objection that the transformers will not be a part of plant as they are used only to regularize electrical flow and do not take part in produce and processing the goods is negated by the decisions in the case of CCE v.Seshasayee, Paper & Boards Ltd. , the departments contention that the transformer was received prior to amendment of Rule 57Q w.e.f 16.3.1995 cannot be upheld in view of the decision in the case of Nova Udyog Ltd. 1996 (88) ELT and CCE v. R.K. Marbles Ltd. wherein the issue was specifically as regards the eligibility of credit on transformers. In this view of the matter since no merits are found in the appeal filed by the Revenue, the said appe...

Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT622Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the matter was called, the ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that he is not pressing or/and contesting the duty determined in this case. He is only contesting the levy of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in this case of denial of Modvat credit.2. After perusal of the show cause notice and the impugned order it is found that the matter could be finally disposed off. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for final decision. It is found that there is a quantity of duty also confirmed by the order amounting to Rs. 1,805/- besides Rs. 45,678/- being the amount of credit found as inadmissible.These amounts are not being contested. Therefore, the penalty of Rs, 47,483/- imposed under Section 11AC cannot be upheld since duty is only Rs. 1,805/-. There is no penalty imposed under Rule 57-I. There is no finding arrived to justify the levy 100% mandatory penalty of Rs. 47,483/-.3. In view of the finding, the order is required to be set aside and the...