Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

B.L. Dholpuria and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ312CAT

1. The grievance of the applicants is that the respondents have conducted the selection for promotion to the post of Law Assistant in violation of the various orders of the Railway Board and have published on 01.01.2003. Hence, they have filed this OA under Section 19 of the A.T. Act seeking following reliefs:- (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case which led to issuance of the panel dated 01.01.2003 and after going through its propriety, legality and constitutional validity, be pleased to quash and set aside the panel dated 01.01.2003 issued under Order No.E/Legal/1025/4/27 Vol. IV issued by Respondent No. 2. (b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh selection to the post of Law Assistant. (e) Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant No. 1 is working ...

E. Merck (India) Ltd. Raidad and E. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC478

1. These appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai dt.6.6.2002. In the impugned order the Commissioner decided the issues arising out of two show cause notices both dt.2.5.2001 demanding differential duties. One notice is issued to M/s. E.Merck (India) Ltd. Raigad, and another one to M/s. E. Merck (India) Ltd. Goa.2. There are two issues involved in the impugned order, one of classification of goods and the other whether or not the show cause notices are time barred.3. The appellants are holders of licences issued under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. They have two units one at Raigad and another at Goa.Among other medicaments both make Fixed Dose Combination of Vitamin B1, B6 & B12 called Neurobion Forte Tablets and Neurobion Injections.Admittedly they have been filing classification declarations under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules claiming classification of their products under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, as medicaments. The department...

Kabul Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC509

1. The appellants are a corporate body incorporated under the Laws of United Arab Emirates and carrying on business of trading in textiles and fabrics. They, through a broker agreed to supply certain fabrics to M/s R.T. & Co, Delhi and M/s Richitra Impex, New Delhi (hereinafter jointly referred to as "buyers") and shipments were made from the manufacturer in China directly to Marmagoa in India. The appellants invoiced the goods as 'Polyester Knit Fabrics' instead of the description as contained in the manufacturer's invoice as "Polyester Nicky Velour". Upon arrival of the said goods in India, the buyers did not retire the documents and or filed any bill of entry required for the clearance of the subject goods. The appellants by a letter dated 11.4.2001 requested the departments permission to re-export the said goods, since they had all titles of ownership to the said goods. They also gave further details for the consignments having been sent in India. By a show cause notice dated ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. C.M.B. Transport Agencies

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None appeared for the respondents. Heard Shri Hitesh Shah, learned D.R. for the applicant Commissioner. The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs-I, Mumbai withdrawing the impugned Show Cause Notice. On review the Board has found that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not proper and legal for the following reasons:- "i) The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Sampat Raj Dugar reported in 1992 (58) ELT 162 (SC) does not have universal application in as much as observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under para 19 of the judgement are quite clear which reads as "(We may reiterate that we are speaking of a case where the import is not contrary to law.) It is only with such a situation that we are concerned in this case and our decision is also confined only to such a situation". Besides, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that exporter (foreign supplier) is entitled to ask for their re-export unless proved to be a party...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Prerna Textile Industries Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC39

1. The issue is dispute involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue, namely, whether installation, erection and commissioning charges including travelling expenses and out of pocket expenses are includable in the assessable value of textile machinery manufactured by the respondents herein stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Apex Court decision in the case of Thermax Limited v. CCE, 1998 (99) ELT 481 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that the charges for installation, erection and commissioning of equipment installed at customer's premises is not includable in the assessable value of such equipment, 2. Following the ratio of the above order we see no ground for interference with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the appeal....

Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the demand confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned order is against the well settled legal position that once the classification list has been accepted and approved by the department, the demand has to be prospective in the case of change in classification. In this connection, the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Cotspun Ltd. -1999 (113) ELT 353 (S.C.) has been cited by the appellants. However, we observe that there has been a change in the legal position on account of retrospective amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Apex Court has since rendered its decision on the issue in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise - 2003 (158) ELT 403 (S.C.). In view of the said decision of the Apex Court in ITW Signode (Supra), the main basis of the appeal filed by the appellants does not survive as it has been held...

Keval Kishan Mehra, Dishti Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC461

1. Shri S.M. Parikh, Ld. Advocate along with Shri S.P. Bharti, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri. Sanjay Singhal, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The issue relates to classification of Bolting Cloth under Chapter Heading 5911.20 as claimed by the department. The appellants, however, claim classification under Heading 5406 claiming it to be nylon fabrics. The Ld. Counsel mainly contended that the appellants were denied the cross examination of Shri Amrit Utsavlal Chhajed, and representatives of Bombay Textile Research Association and Central Excise Laboratory who have given expert opinion and test report. Mainly on this ground the Ld. Counsel has sought for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication.3. The Ld. JDR contended that the issue of classification has attained the finality because the appellant have not challenged the order-in-original No. 25/CEX/1993 dated 31.3.93, passed by ...

Ganesh International and Khushi Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty as set put in the annexure to this order arise out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur. The question relates to classification of Long Pepper (Pippali) imported by the applicants whether as spice under Heading 9.04 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff, as held by the Revenue or as part of plant (fruit) primarily in pharmacy classifiable under Heading 12.11 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff as contended by the applicant.2. On hearing both sides, we find that in the case of M/s. Ganesh International (the first applicant before us) the same issue had come for consideration when the Bench has directed predeposit of about 26% out of the total duty demand and waived the predeposit which remaining duties and penalties. Ld. DR emphasis that this is not a case where such low amount should be directed to be deposited as a pre- condition of hearing of the appeal and would pray at least 50% of the amou...

De-nocil Corp. Protection Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Section 129E of the customs Act, 1962 requires the appellants to pre-deposit the duty and interest demanded and the penalty levied. The first proviso to the said Section 129E, however, provides that in any particular case where the Tribunal is of the opinion that such pre-deposit would cause hardship, the Tribunal may dispense with such pre-deposit subject to such conditions as deemed fit so as to safeguard the interest of revenue. These stay applications have been filed by the appellants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalties determined under the impugned order dated 31/10/2002 relating to imports made without payment of customs duty during 11/06/1998 to 02/11/1998. The amounts required to be pre-deposited are as under :- Out order on these stay applications and the reasons for our order are as follows : 2. After grant of several adjournments, we have heard at length the learned advocates for the appellants and the learned S.D.R. We particularly appreciate the d...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Annapurna Plastopack Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT529Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The revenue's appeal is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents were sanctioned refund of Rs. 701219/- in RG23 A part II. The request for interest was declined by saying that the provision of payment of interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 are not attracted since it is not a cash refund and the refund is through adjustment in modvat credit only. Against the order rejecting the claim for interest, the respondent approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who held as under: "The of the appellants is covered by explanation given under Section 11BB which says that where any order of refund is made by Commissioner (Appeals) against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise under Sub-section (2) of Section 11B, the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said Sub-section (2) for the purpose of this section. Accordingly, in the present case, the Commissioner (...