Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Manoj Amdas Ingle and ors. Vs. Member, Industrial Court and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(102)FLR584]; 2004(3)MhLj41

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaints (ULPN) Nos. 47 to 154 of 2000 dated 8th October, 2002 thereby dismissing the complaints of the present petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition.3. The complainants/petitioners had approached the learned Industrial Court by moving the complaints under Item Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act) praying for direction to the respondent/company to make them regular and permanent from 1-4-1996 by giving all monetary benefits and in the alternative for a direction to reinstate the complainants in their former posts and for payment of full back wages for the period they were treated as Semi- skilled Trainees till engagement as temporary employees and even thereaf...

B.K. Industrial Corpn. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR865; 2005(101)ECC365; 2004(169)ELT13(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Settlement Commission dated 3rd December, 2002, wherein it is held that the goods imported and allegedly supplied by the petitioners to the Director General of Naval Project, Vishakhapattanam ('DGNP' for short), are not ship stores for the use of ship of the Indian Navy and, hence not eligible for exemption from payment of customs duty under Section 90 of the Customs Act, 1962. By the said order, the Settlement Commission has called upon the petitioners to pay the duty with interest and has also levied nominal penalty upon the petitioners.2. The petitioners are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioners are engaged in the business of supply of ship stores to the Indian Navy, Coast Guard etc,3. It is the case of the petitioners that against purchase order issued by the DGNP, the petitioners had imported and two consignments of Skimmer/Pump unit/Spares BOOM and spares accessori...

General Manager and anr. Vs. Porarapu Durgayya Rajayya

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2005)ACC744; 2004(6)BomCR895

Kharche S.T., J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short W.C. Act), the management, i.e., the General Manager of Western Coalfields Ltd. (for short W.C.L.) has filed this appeal challenging the Award dated 4.5.1991 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Chandrapur, in W.C.C No. 45(19)/ 86, directing the management to pay compensation of Rs. 42,360/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till realisation.2. Brief facts are as under:The respondent is an employee as a coal filler since 1965 in Hindustan Lal Peth Colliery No. 1. The employee was met with an accident while he was on duty on 28.7.1985 at about 1.00 p.m. While he was filling the coal in the first shift, a big heap of coal from the roof had fallen on his left shoulder causing him serious injuries. He was unable to lift anything with his right hand and, therefore, he was admitted at Lalpeth dispensary under the management of ...

Dhanlaxmi Garments Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,71,78,536/- in terms of Section 72 with interest on a total quantity of 1,62,763 yards of duty free fabrics imported by M/s. Dhanlaxmi Garments Pvt. Ltd. (100% EOU who purchased Warp Knitted Fabrics on High Seas sales basis) illicitly removed and sold in the local market instead of being used in the manufacture of export garments, confiscated 5350 pieces of Lady gowns and 650 kgs. of waste under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, on the ground that gowns were not manufactured out of imported raw materials but out of indigenously procured raw materials, with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-, imposed penalty of amount equal to duty under Section 112(a) and Section 114 of the Customs Act and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Sanjay B. Goyal, Director of the first appellant company under Section 112(b...

India Forge and Drop Stampings Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT90Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that the calculation of the quantum of production cannot be done only on the basis of input-output ratio. Under these circumstances, the condition for pre-deposit is waived and there will be stay of recovery....

Vashishti Detergents Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Under the impugned order, there is a duty demand of about Rs. 44 lakhs. About Rs. 37 lakhs is on account of shortage of inputs and remaining is on account of excess of inputs. These shortages were noticed by the Central Excise authorities during the visit to the unit on 15.12.95. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and redemption fine of Rs. 8 lakhs have also been imposed.2. The explanation of the appellant-manufacturer before the lower authorities was that, actually there was no shortage or excess of inputs. Only that the excise records had not been fully posted.According to the appellants, if full postings were made in the excise records based on the factory accounts maintained regularly by the appellants, the entire quantities would be reconciled.3. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for the appellants took us through a letter of reconciliation of quantities filed by the appellants on 29.12.95. This letter was received within a few days of stock taking by the officers. The ...

Atul Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals arise out of the same order are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing both sides.2. The appellants had exported certain consignments of their excisable goods which were returned back as the quality specifications were not met. They were assessed to duty under the provisions of Notification No. 94/96 and 18% C.V.D as applicable was levied and paid.Subsequently, the goods have been reprocessed after obtaining permission of the concerned Central Excise officers under the provisions of Rule 173MM and reexported thereafter.3. The appellants however realised that the assessments made under the provisions of Notification No. 94/96 by the proper officer at Jawahar Customs House, Raigad District were required to be reassessed and benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus should have been applied to the imports made and the duty paid by them at 18% C.V.D. should be refunded to them, and made application to that effect. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs took...

Commissioner of Customs (Ep) Vs. New India Export and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT140Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After allowing the Miscellaneous Applications filed for early hearing of these appeals by importers/respondents for early hearing of the Revenue's appeals on the ground that the issue in dispute stands covered by earlier order of the Tribunal, we proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. The Respondents herein imported completely mutilated old and worn clothing at a declared unit price of US $ 0.45 per kg., which was not accepted and the value was enhanced to US $ 0.60 per kg., as agreed by the importers. Appeals were preferred by the importers before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, contending that the value had been enhanced without any corroborative evidence that the value of such goods was US $ 0.60 per kg., and that such enhancement was contrary to the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as well as that of the Tribunal in A58 to 60/KOL/2001 dated 22/01/2002 in the case of Commissioner of (Port), Kolkatta v. Le...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sohum Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(203)ELT493Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein were importing Jumbo Rolls of 43CM size and engaged in cutting and slitting them into smaller sizes and rolling them for making them suitable for use in fax machines.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise held that the above process was a process of manufacture and the duty was chargeable under CET Sub- heading No. 4823.19. the commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that cutting/slitting of paper from jumbo rolls does not amount to manufacture; hence this appeal.3. We have heard Ld. SDR and perused the records, none appears for the respondent in spite of notice. We find that the issue in dispute has been settled by the Tribunal's order in the case of Kores India ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2003(152) ELT 395 (Tri. Chennai)] it has been held that conversion of jumbo reels of Typewriter/Telex Ribbon into spool form as required by customers to suit particular model and make of the machine amounts to manufacture as a ...

Shi Vs. Hankar Plywood Inds. Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When these applications came up for hearing, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for the reason that the assessee had not filed an application to condone the delay. The relevant facts are that the adjudicating authorities passed order in appeal No. E/286 on 22.3.2001, which was received by the assessee on 27.3.2001. Assessee filed appeal on 21.6.2001. In appeal No. E/287 original orders were passed on 24.3.2001, which was received by the assessee on 27.3.2001. Appeal was filed on 21.6.2001. At the time when the original orders were issued and received by the appellant, three months time were available for the assessee to file appeal. As per amended Section, which came into effect on 11.5.2001, the period was reduced to 60 days . It is the case of the assessee that they filed appeal within three months on the basis of the directions given in the preamble of the original orders received by them.2. When ...