Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs, Acc Vs. Paro Syntex Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering the issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is classification of an entity under import termed as 'Computer Auto Glare Glass'. Revenue wants classification under 70.20, as article of glass while the CC (Appeals) has classified it under 8473.30. (a) the entity is a screen made of glass with nice edge of plastic and used as a shield over the Video Display Monitor of a Computer to cut off glare. (b) the use is only facilitating an application not crucial or essential to working of a computer. It cannot be a part of computer thereof. It is mere as an accessory and can be used on any TV screen. Therefore classifications as part/component of a computer under 8473 is not accepted.Forbes Gokak Ltd. v. Collector - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) after considering in extenso the chapter Note (C) of Chapter 84 in para 20 ordered that the articles appliances of ceramic glass were excluded from Chapter 84. Following the decision, the classification un...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Pearim Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the lower authority.The Commissioner (Appeals) has extracted the relevant portion of the Ordere-in-Original:- "The said assessee, failed to furnish requisite Bond and Bank Guarantee and therefore the demand were issued to the said assessee vide Show Cause Notice No. MP/13-Navsari/Pearim/94 dtd. 14.2.96 by concerned Range Supdt. The said assessee was also asked why penally under Rule 173Q should not be imposed on them for not filing declaration. The Price List No. 55/91, 91/91, 98/91, 45/93 & 46/93 were approved vide OIO No. SRT-IV/ADJ/25/96/PL dtd. 29.2.1996 without any change. In view of the same, aforesaid demand is not; sustainable and is dropped. However, since the assessee failed to follow procedure u/r 9B of CER, 194, I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand ) on (hem u/r 173Q of CER, 1944".2. Following the Supreme Court decision reported 1995 (76) ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Swadia Brothers Engg. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC132

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order set aside the order of the lower authority except to the extract of penalty imposed on the manager and branch manager of the assesses.2. The officers of interrupted a Tempo which carried of 2 DG sets.Accompanying Central Excise document in the form of an invoice showed that the duty debit column is left blank. The goods are manufactured by M/s Swadia Brothers Engineering Pvt. Ltd.Daman. The Central Excise officers visited the premises to check whether duty has been paid on the DO sets. They found that none of the Central Excise records were not available at the factory. They there up seized the DG sets in question.3. The Deputy Commissioner while adjudicating the matter held that the assessee by not maintaining the statutory registers/accounts at the factory as required under the law contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules; that the plea that Central Excise recor...

Parakh Foods Ltd., Prakash Parakh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT0Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants are interalia, engaged in the manufacture of fixed vegetable oil, which chargeable to nil rate of duty. They are also manufacturing soap stock, acid oil, industrial mono-carboxylic fatty acid, distilled fatty acid, falling under Chapter 15 and 38 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These four products arise during the manufacture of fixed vegetable oil. The applicants claimed that the aforesaid four products are liable to duty and claimed Modvat credit on the inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of these four products. In or around October 1996 they applied for Registration certificate under Rule 174 by declaring the entire process for manufacture undertaken in their factory. The Registration certificate was issued in October 1996 by the department indicating the excisable goods manufactured as acid oil, soap stocks, etc. emerging as by product in the manufacture of vegetable oils. Classification declaration declaring the acid oil and ...

National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia Vs. Sentrans Industries Limi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom136; 2004(1)ALLMR832; 2004(1)ARBLR409(Bom); III(2004)BC503; 2004(2)BomCR1; 2004(2)MhLj696

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal raise an issue of some importance. The issue is whether the power exercisable under Section 9(ii)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Court in a matter seeking security in respect of the amount in dispute in the Arbitration is restricted by the conditions of attachment before judgment as prescribed under Order 38, Rule 5, CPC. In other words, the question is, is it necessary for the party seeking interim measure from the Court for security of the amount in dispute in the Arbitration by the Court during the Arbitral proceedings to satisfy the conditions of attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5, CPC.2. The aforesaid issue in its stark form has to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996') and the powers of the Court.3. The Act of 1996 which came into force on 22nd August, 1996 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic Arb...

Sundarshan Marketing and Etc. Vs. Chief Commercial Manager, Western Ra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom114; IV(2004)BC446; 2004(1)CTLJ605(Bom)

Dharmadhikari, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugn the action of the respondents in not accepting the tender of the petitioners for supply of various kinds of ice-creams for passengers travelling in the trains of Western Railway.2. At the outset it must be noted that by an order dated 10th December, 2003, this court after perusing the affidavits filed on behalf of parties granted prayer of the petitioner to implead M/s. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. as party respondent to this petition. Today, when the matter was placed before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought further time to carry out the amendments. It is worthwhile noting that the order at the request of learned counsel for petitioner to implead the successful bidder was passed as early as on 10th December, 2003. A period of four weeks has elapsed and yet the amendment has not been carried out. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the petition without the s...

Devidas Khanderao Deshmukh Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR365; 2004(3)MhLj1104

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.2. By this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Award dated 22-8-1990 passed by the Labour Court rejecting the Reference submitted to it by the Government of Maharashtra through Deputy Commissioner of Labour and consequently upholding the validity of termination order dated 24-4-1986 in relation to the petitioner issued by the respondent/Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation.3. Relevant facts are as under :The petitioner was working as a watchman with the respondent from the season of 1979-80. He worked continuously till the end of each season from 1979-80 to 1985-86. The petitioner was assigned the work at Dhamangaon Railway during the season 1985-86. During this period, the petitioner's wife had fallen ill and, therefore, he forwarded an application requesting the respondent to grant leave for the period fr...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Vijaykumar Nagnath Bargaje and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC775

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. Heard the learned A.P.P. None present for the respondents though served. This Court, therefore, heard the learned A.P.P. in the absence of the respondents.2. In this appeal, the applicant State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.10.1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Pune, acquitting the accused of the offences under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. The accused No. 1 Dr. Vijaykumar Nagnath Bargaje is the husband of the complainant Swati P.W. 6. Accused No. 2 Nagnath Annaji is the father-in-law of Swati i.e., father of Accused No. 1.3. The case of the prosecution is that Swati P.W, 6 married accused No. 1 Dr. Vijaykumar Bargaje some time on 9.5.1984 at Aurangabad. After marriage, she resided with the accused at Sangvi, Shitolenagar, Pune. Satyanarayan Pooja was performed on 16.5.1984. After the said Pooja Swati resided with her husband up to 13.6.1984. On 13.6.1984 the mother of Swati came and took Swati along with her to Au...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sunflag Iron and Steel Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Facts in brief are that against the order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner (T), the Commissioner of Central Excise authorized the Assistant Commissioner (R & T) to file an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order-in-appeal, while rejecting the appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeal) held as under :- "Section 35E(2) contemplates only one authority whose orders or decisions can be called for and examined by the Collector and that authority can be only an adjudicating subordinate to him. After examination of the record, the Commissioner has to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order. Thereafter he has to direct 'such authority' to apply to the Commissioner for determination of such points arising out of the decision or the order a...

Upkar International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeals are directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby the refund claims of the appellants were disallowed. The facts in brief are that, the appellants had cleared certain consignments for export purportedly under bond without payment of duty. However, on realising that the bond which was executed in terms of the procedure for such export had expired and there was no valid bond to cover the said export without payment of duty. Therefore, the appellants paid the respective amount of duty payable on the consignments removed for export. On completion of export formalities and after obtaining the proof of export, the appellants presented the refund claim in respect of duty paid at the point of removal of goods for export. The appellants claim that, the said payment of duty was in respect of removal of goods for export, under the claim of rebate. The learned Deputy/Assistant Commissioner found that, at the poi...