Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Smt. Gitadevi Jhunjhunwala and Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC137

1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the Order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exhibit Nos.16,18, 20 and 22 in Original Application No. 1412 of 2000. By the impugned order, the application made by the original defendants/appellants herein, wherein prayer was made by them for declaration that the original application was not maintainable because of mis-joinder of several causes of action and mis-joinder of defendants in the original application, came to be rejected.2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Jain for the appellants and Mr. Raut for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings.3. During the course of arguments Mr. Raut prayed for permission to tender some documents along with supporting affidavit. However, after going through those documents, which Mr. Raut, appearing for the respondent Bank sought to tender, it was revealed that those documents were not befo...

Phil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR788; 2005(101)ECC439; 2004(168)ELT24(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj936

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. During the period from 20th October, 1989 to 7th April, 1990, the petitioners had exported 1029 'In-a-Snap Cameras' manufactured by them. Since the materials used in the manufacture of those cameras were imported and appropriate amount of customs duty was paid thereon, the petitioners as per Section 75 of the Customs Act read with Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1971, were entitled to claim drawback of duty paid on the materials used in the manufacture of the Cameras which were exported. Under the Drawback Rules, the rate of drawback for the respective item is specified,2. Where the rate of drawback has not been determined on any article, then, under the Rules, the manufacturers or exporters of such articles were required to make an application to the Central Government under Rule 6 of the Drawback Rules seeking determination of the amount or rate of drawback with necessary particulars as more particularly set out therein. In respect of the products expor...

Vidyadhar Vinayak Mathane Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR285; 2004(3)MhLj328

J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was elected as Councillor (on the ticket of Shiv Sena) of Municipal Council, Pulgaon from Prabhag No. 5-C which is reserved for Other Backward Class in the election which was held on 9-12-2001. Prior to this, the petitioner had contested an election of Member of Legislative Assembly from Deoli-Pulgaon constituency in the General Elections to the Assembly held on 6-9-1999. In the said General Election, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice during the course of the said election by the Election Commission of India vide dated 28-6-2000 and as per the notice he was required to file a statement of correct account of election expenses with necessary details and documents to the District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Wardha and upon failure thereof to do so, he was put on notice that he- will be liable to be disqualified under Section 10-A of the Representation of People Act, 195...

Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT326Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The ROA application is allowed and the appeal, which was dismissed, vide Order No. 344/97-C, dated 9-6-1997 for want of clearance from the Committee of Secretaries, is restored to its original number, as clearance is no longer required in view of the fact that the appellant is no longer a Public Sector Undertaking due to disinvestment....

Lloyds Insulations (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Sahar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT510Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in the instant appeal relates to the correct classification of "foaming machine". The lower authorities sought to classify the same under heading No. 8479 of the Customs Tariff as against the claim of classification under heading No. 8477 made by the appellants. Foaming machine mixes two raw material inputs; polyol and isocynate under controlled conditions, resulting in the formation of polyurethane. Polyurethane comes out of the dispensing port in molten form and can be poured into various moulds to get polyurethane foam products.2. The Asst. Commissioner had held that though polyol is a plastic but the machine is not working on it as plastic and is converting it as polyurethanes. Therefore this type of machine is not covered under Heading No. 84.77. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that polyol is not plastic and then further proceeded to hold that since the input is not plastic the machine does not qualify to be classified under Heading No. 84.79.3. I...

Alexo Chemicals, Keshavlal H. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The three appeals relate to a common order in appeal and hence being decided together, The main appellants namely M/s Alexo Chemicals are engaged in the manufacture of Mefanamic Acid I.P., a bulk drug. It is alleged that on 16/9/98, they had removed 85 kg of the product, in a clandestine manner, without payment of duty. This came to right as a result of interception of a tempo transporting the said product without the cover of proper duty paying documents. Besides on detailed scrutiny of records of the factory and that of a transporter company it was revealed that during the period 8/10/97 to 29/03/98 the main appellants had removed 345 kgs. of Mefanamic Acid I.P., without payment of duty due thereon. The duty evasion of Rs. 38,813/- was alleged on this quantity.3. The allegation of evasion on the quantity of 85 kgs. is based on the evidence that though the invoices were prepared and the goods were physically removed from the factory premises, the duty due thereon has not been debi...

Plastrulon Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT511Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein manufacture Seamless C.S. Pipe PTFE-TEFLON/PVDF/PP and other plastic line products as well as C.S./cast ductile iron fabricated steel pipe fittings etc. and classified them under CETA sub-heading 3917.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 14/92 dt. 1.3.92. Show cause notices proposing classification under CETA sub-heading Nos. 305.90 and 7304.90 and proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 25,51,136/- on clearances during the period 1.3.93 to 28.2.94 were issued. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the classification proposed in the notices and confirmed duty demand, relying upon the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) Pune in an Order-in-Appeal dt. 30.6.94 of the same assessee on the classification of the same goods. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the classification arrived at by the adjudicating authority but remanded the matter for determination of correct assessable va...

Standard Metal Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT297Tri(Mum.)bai

a) Appellants are in appeal against two sets of adjudication proceedings, one initiated by notice dt. 20.07.1991 demanding duty for the period April 1987 to August 1989 and the other in case of eight notices within the period of six months; both the proceedings want to re-classify the entity being manufactured by the appellant which was claimed and approved in the classification tests filed by them under heading 7801.90, however the department wants to classify the same under 7806.00. b) The CCE (Appeals) has found that the entity under dispute is a cast anode of lead with a copper hook and not considered as a unwrought lead under heading 7801.90 but as Electroplating Anodes which as per HSN notes should be falling under heading 7806.00, and in part III of the classification tests were declared to be having the '..... end use of the said goods was protection of customers equipment from corrosions....' c) Cast Anodes of lead would fall under heading 7801.90. If one reads the HSN headin...

Lloyds Insulation (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sahar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in the instant appeal relates to the correct classification of "foaming machine". The lower authorities sought to classify the same under hearing No. 8479 of the Customs Tariff as against the claim of classification under heading no. 8477 made by the appellants. Foaming machine mixes two raw material inputs; polyol and isocynate under controlled conditions, resulting in the formation of polyurethane. Polyurethane comes out of the dispensing port in molten form and can be poured into various moulds to get polyurethane foam products.2. The Asst. Commissioner had held that though polyol is a plastic but the machine is not working on it as plastic and us converting it as polyurethanes. Therefore this types of machine is not covered under Heading No. 84.77. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that polyol is not plastic and then further proceeded to hold that since the input is not plastic the machine does not qualify to be classified under Heading No. 84.79.3. ...

Dr. Iyer Nikhil Lakshman and ors. Vs. Director of Medical Education an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR2; 2004(2)MhLj65

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Petitioners seek the following reliefs in this petition :--(a) That a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the 1st respondent: i) not to enforce and implement the earmarking rule while granting admissions to Post Graduate Medical Course due to commence from 27-1-2004;ii) not to implement the revised provisional State Merit List as per the notification dated 14-1-2004; iii) not to give admissions to the students of Bharatiya Vidyapeeth who have not passed their MBBS examination from Pune university; iv) delete the names of two students viz., Somnath Chattopadhyay bearing Roll No. 410906 and Dipendu Mazumdar bearing Roll No. 310663 from the Merit List of general category candidates. 3. All petitioners are students who have passed their MBBS examination. They are seeking admission in post graduate medical course in Medical colleges in t...