Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mayank Metallurgical P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue is in appeal against the following finding of the CCE(Appeal): "In above view of the matter, it is now only to be seen whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where the delay involved in the latter two incidents is of only the day each, the order of lower authority forfeiting the above facility for the maximum term of two months is required to be sustained or otherwise? 2. In its decision reported per 2002 (142) ELT 383, the two-member Bench of Tribunal before whom the above question came up for consideration in an appeal filed by M/s Calcom Vision Ltd. held that the limit fixed under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 is maximum period for which the facility can be forfeited and is not mandatory that in all such cases the facility should be forfeited for the maximum period. It can be seen that the appellant had sufficient balance in their Cenvat Account on the day (s) when the default (s) involving only one single day occurred. While considering this age also the fact t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shree Ram Steel Rolling

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this application the appellant Revenue seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We have heard the Ld.SDR for the applicant. None has represented the respondents. However, their written submissions in opposition to the application have come on record. We have considered these submissions as well as the submissions of the Ld. DR.2. The issue involved in the case relates to valuation of a ship which was cleared by the respondents under a Bill of Entry dated 21.11.2001 wherein the price of the ship was declared as US $ 638,369/-, which was based on an agreement dated 20.11.2001 entered into between them and the ship's owner (M/s. Seafast Shipping Ltd). Another party viz. M/s.TDD Ship Breakers, Bhavnagar, had earlier imported the vessel in terms of an agreement dated 12.11.2001 entered into with the owner of the vessel, wherein the agreed price of the vessel was to US $ 711,125/-.That party, however, backed out of the deal and stated that they had ...

Sharpmex Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT478Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard. The issue involved is that of refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the appellants towards redemption fine imposed on them, during the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal under protest.2. The appellants were issued Show Cause Notice dated 28.4.95, which was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Appeal vide Order-in-Original and confirmed the demand of duty of the goods at Rs. 81,31,835/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of plant, machinery, land and building, etc.3. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Tribunal during pendency of appeal. The appellants have deposited Rs. 1.00 lakh redemption fine under protest since they were ordered to deposit.The Tribunal in its order dated 28.4.2001 has held that the goods in question are classifiable under sub-heading No. 8211.00, but set aside the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of duty on the basis of being time barred demand and reman...

Rinkoo Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme. A penalty of Rs. 13,80,656/- was imposed on them by the Original Authority and the same was affirmed by the first Appellate Authority on the ground of delayed payment of duty, under the said scheme. Seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the penalty, the ld.Counsel submits that the applicants have a strong prima facie case on the strength of the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India [ 2002(52)RLT 636(Mad.)], whereby Rule 3 of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 was held ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The argument of the ld.Counsel is that, when the Rule stands struck down as unconstitutional, there could be no imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Countering this argument, the ld.D.R. relies on another decision Passed by the same Bench of the Madras...

A. Desai and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT342Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed duty demanded by the lower authority amounting to Rs. 1,06,176/-.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Texturised Synthetic Yarn falling under Chapter Heading No. 5402 of CETA. A comparison of clearances of their product in 94-95 shown in the excise records with those shown in the balance sheet of the appellant for the year 94-95 revealed a discrepancy. The balance sheet shows that the appellant cleared 1758.60 kgs. of the said goods more than what is shown in the excise records. A show cause notice came to be issued on 30.9.99 demanding duty alleged to have been not paid on the above said quantity. The case was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing before the original authority.3. The appellants went in appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner. In the impugned order the Commissio...

Manibhadra Processors Vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR243; 2005(101)ECC474; 2005(184)ELT13(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj134

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner, has basically come before this Court to seek direction against the respondents to dispose of its application dated 23rd December, 2003 seeking registration of its industrial unit situate at Plot No. 31, MIDC Industrial Unit, Ambernath, District Thane. However, during the pendency of this petition, by an order dated 19.2.2004 petitioners' request for registration came to be rejected. Petitioner now seeks to challenge the order dated 19.2.2004 incorporated at Ex. H.Facts:The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:2. On 7.11.2003 petitioner claims to have established a manufacturing unit to process cotton/ manmade fabrics at the factory premises referred to hereinabove. On 23rd December, 2003, petitioner applied to the Central Excise Department in the prescribed form to register its industrial unit under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 formed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' and 'Rules' for short)....

Shri Dattu Rama Sawant Vs. Bharat Textile Mills N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR672; [2004(102)FLR580]; 2004(3)MhLj84

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court passed in a Revision Application setting aside the order of the Labour Court granting the Petitioner wages for the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1992. The Respondent was directed to make the payment within one month from the date of the order.2. The Petitioner was working with the Respondent-Mill as a Helper from 1954. On 10.12.1988, the petitioner was informed that he would stand superannuated from 1.1.1989 on completion of 60 years of age. Thereafter the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his date of birth was 20.11.1931 and that he was entitled to continue in service for a further period of three years. On 1.1.1989, the Petitioner's services were terminated in accordance with the letter dated 10.12.1988 informing him that he had reached the age of superannuation. Aggrieved by this termination of his services, the Petitioner sent an approach letter under Section 42 of the Bombay Industrial Relations ...

Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)232; [2004]267ITR488(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee gives rise to a highly debated but interesting intricate, legal question as to whether or not the appellant-assessee (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HHC, or in the alternative, under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), in the assessment of the asst yr 1996-97The History of adjudication2. The history of adjudication proceedings of the case can be stated quite shortly before touching the question of law involved in the present appeal3. The assessee in this case is an individual by status and is a leading producer of Hindi films The assessee has filed his return of income for the asst yr 1996-97 on 30th Oct, 1996, declaring his income in the sum of Rs. 9,60,970 and claiming deduction of Rs. 84,36,746 under Section 80HHC in respect of export of beta-cam tapes with rights attached thereto4. The assessee claimed to have entered...

Geeta Satish Gokarna Vs. Satish Shankarrao Gokarna

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom345; 2004(3)ALLMR229; 2004(3)MhLj159

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved by judgment dated 26th May, 1995 by mutual consent under Section 33 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There was also other consent terms included of which clauses 4 and 5 read as under:--'4. Both the parties agrees and undertakes to the Hon'ble Court that they will not initiate any proceeding against each other in future.5. The petitioner will not claim any maintenance or alimony in future from the Respondent.'2. The appellant herein for reasons disclosed in the application being Application No. 122 of 1997 prayed that she be granted permanent maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of the application or such other date as this Court deems fit and proper. The application was filed on 4th September, 1997. In the application the appellant contended that after the marriage the appellant and respondent had been on tour of Europe and that the respondent had taken a premises on lease by paying month...

Deepak Eknath Dhavan Vs. Anwar Faramosh Khan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR31; 2004(4)MhLj1

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed by the appellant (original defendant No. 2) seeks to challenge the order dated 22nd January, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 68 of 2002 filed by the original plaintiff who is respondent No. 1 herein. Suit No. 29 of 2002 is filed by respondent No. 1 as a dispossessed person under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to recover possession of the immovable property concerned. In that Suit, he had taken out the above Notice of Motion wherein prayer (a) was that pending disposal of the Suit, the High Court Receiver be appointed the Receiver of the property being front side Ground Floor Bungalow admeasuring about 1500 sq. feet situated at Gupta Bhavan Nos. 166, 167, N.A. No. 18-B, Gundavali Village, Andheri (East) Mumbai ('the said property' for short) and for a further direction to the Receiver to take possession of the said property and to put the plaintiff in possession the...