Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Alf Engineering Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal has been filed against the following order of the Commissioner (Appeals):- "This appeal against order-in-original dated 23.11.97, received by the appellants on 01.01.98 has been filed in this office on 07.08.98, much after the expiry of the time limit of 3 months prescribed under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for filing of appeals. The appellants state that they had paid up the demand and penalty as per the impugned order and therefore thought that there was no need to file an appeal. They have requested for condonation of delay. The reasons put forward for delay in filing of appeal are not satisfactory. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected as time barred." The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also ignored the fact that the appellants were forced to make the deposit of the duty amount 180 days even before they could file the appeal and once the appellants paid the duty amount under protest they were under the impression that since the duty amount is paid they were ...

Shankar Savala Gurav Vs. Shri Bala Govinda Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj864

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception of the judgment and order dated 30/8/1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur in Revision Application No. MRT/KP/77/86.2. The sole question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the tenant could have instituted an application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for restoration of his possession or was obliged to file application under Section 29 of the Act for such a relief.3. Briefly stated, the land in question is R.S. No. 512/3 at Village Shiroli, Taluka Hatkanangale admeasuring 27 gunthas only. The predecessor of respondent - Mr. Bala Govinda Patil was lawfully cultivating the suit land as a tenant on the tillers day i.e. 1/4/1957. However, according to the petitioner-landlord, possession of the suit land was obtained from the tenant sometime in 1965 as the tenant surrendered the suit land. The tenant, h...

The Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Bom)343

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was enacted with a view to provide for orderly development of the co-operative movement in the State of Maharashtra in accordance with the relevant directive principles of State policy enunciated in the Constitution of India, The application of the principles of cooperation has made it possible for a society composed of comparatively poor and weak men to give its members some of the advantages ordinarily obtainable only to the rich and strong, The co-operation is not a merely business but a combination of business and a spirit of service.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Central Bank within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the object of which includes creation of funds to be advanced in the form of loans to other societies such as agricultural, co-operative and multipurpose co-operative s...

Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR966; 2004(2)BomCR88; [2004]265ITR423(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj353

B. B. Vagyani, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was enacted with a view to provide for orderly development of the co-operative movement in the State of Maharashtra in accordance with the relevant directive principles of State policy enunciated in the Constitution of India. The application of the principles of cooperation has made it possible for a society composed of comparatively poor and weak men to give its members some of the advantages ordinarily obtainable only to the rich and strong. The co-operation is not a merely business but a combination of business and a spirit of service.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Central Bank within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the object of which includes creation of funds to be advanced in the form of loans to other societies such as agricultural, co-operative and multipurpose co-operative...

Jiwanlal S/O Pokardas Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj265

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Shri Paunikar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Doifode, the learned A.G.P. for the State and Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. This second appeal is preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff. His suit is for permanent and mandatory injunction directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to remove the encroachment, which had been decreed by the Trial Court, and has been set aside by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal.3. The substantial question of law is formulated as under:--'Whether in absence of special damages; the plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction for removal of encroachment?'4. The appellant and the respondents are the residents of Sindhi Colony, Desaiganj. This colony, which has been established for refugees, who migrated from Pakistan in the year 1948. The appellant claims to be an allottee of Plot No. 13, in that colony. The appellant Nos. 2 ...

indranil D. Deshmukh Vs. Mumbai University Through Its Vice Chancellor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj236

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus or a direction, directing the respondent, Bombay University, to send the answer book of the petitioners in the subject of 'Intellectual Property Law' for moderation in accordance with the relevant Ordinance. The petitioner then has made a consequential prayer also.2. Notice why the petition should not be admitted was issued by this court on 19th August 2003 and a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-University on 1st September 2003. Taking into consideration, the urgency of the matter and importance of the issues involved, the matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of all the parties concerned. The University has by its reply disputed the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground of existence of alternate remedy of approaching the in-house redressal machinery provided by the University either by approaching the Students Grievanc...

Rochem Separation Systems (i) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT72Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application by Rochem Separation System (I) Pvt Ltd is for waiver of deposit of a sum of Rs. 1.38 crores demanded under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, penalty imposed of equal amount under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, Rule 25 of Cenvat Rules, 2001 and Cenvat Excise Rules, 2002. The application by Kamleshkumar Goel, its managing director, is for waiver of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of desalination plants.It cleared such plants either on payment of duty or as supply stores to the ships of Indian navy or coast guard in terms of entry 3 of the Table to notification 64/95. It availed of the modvat credit procedure (latter Cenvat Credit Procedure). It is stated that it was maintaining separate accounts for four types of inputs for the goods manufactured by it which are common. Notice issued to it demanded duty in terms of Rule 57CC for the period up to 30.3.2000, in terms of Rule 57AD from 31.3.2000 to 30.6.2001, Rule 6 of the Cenva...

Jayant Agro Organics Ltd. Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC21

1. The appellants are a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) licensee, since 1993, for manufacture and export of Refined Castor Oil, Hydrogenated Caster Oil, Hydroxy Stearic Acid and Ricinoletic Acid, etc. They had availed the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 1/95-CE, dated 4.1.95 and procured the fuel namely "Furnace Oil" without payment of duty under CT-3 certificates issued, after due compliance of the conditions of the notification.2. It was noticed that vide amendment dated 15.9.98, Notification No.1/95-CE was amended and the benefit of duty free clearance availed in respect of furnace oil processed by this 100% EOU unit was questioned.By issue of a show cause notice demanding duty on furnace oil so procured brought and used by the 100% EOU unit during the period 1.3.2000 to 4.7.2000, this duty was proposed to be recovered from the appellants and not the manufacturer of furnace oil.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), against an appeal filed on confirmation of the demands by the l...

B.E.S.T. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT592Tri(Mum.)bai

1. There is a delay of 316 days in filing this appeal. We are not able to accept the request for adjournment on the ground that the counsel of the applicant is out of station to day because he (or she) has to appear before the Supreme Court. No vakalanama has been filed. The appeal memorandum did not bear signature of any counsel. There is no request made by the advocate or authorised representative seeking adjournment. We therefore decline to adjourn.2. We, after seeing the stay application and other papers and hearing the departmental representative, proceed with the matter.3. The explanation for the delay, contained in the application for condonation of delay, is as follows: After receipt of the Commissioner's order on 4.6.2002, the application for review has been filed against his order on 10.7.2002 and followed with various reminders. It is contended that in terms of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, central excise officers has the powers of civil court and enquiry before suc...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Toshniwal Instruments (Bombay)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the following finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) : - "I have gone through the submissions of the appellants. Rule 173L provides for the refund of duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issues for home consumption from a factory which are returned to the same or any other factory for being remade, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar treatment. In the present case, the goods were cleared on payment of duty and were brought back and after calibration process, were cleared again on payment of duty. The case is squarely covered by the provisions of Rule 173I. The appellants have rightly submitted that any clearance outside the factory, except clearance for export, is a clearance for home consumption and return of machine in the present matter under Rule 173L is covered. The refund of duty can therefore be not denied to them for these reasons. i) Returned goods not subjected to reprocessing, re-conditioning or remaking etc. as stipu...