Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Plas Pack Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT293Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Neither the DR nor the respondent were sure that the issue was all about. The order of the Commissioner (A) is equally confusing.2. A letter seeking refund was filed by M/s. Plas Pack Industries (Respondent) way back in 13.8.94, referring to their earlier letter dated 11.5.94, which incidentally is not available in the Paper book.The claim is for Rs. 27,32,347/-. The period in which the excess amount paid was 1989-90. The excess duty paid itself arose out of a classification dispute M/s. PPI were manufacturers of HOPE tapes fabrics & bags (sacks). They claimed classification of their goods under Chapter Heading 5406,5408 & 6301 respectively and were clearing them on payment of duty. However by their letter dated 22.6.1989, received in the Central Excise office on 3.7.89, the respondents claimed classification of HDPE Tapes under Chapter 39 of CETA but all the same were paying duty applicable to goods...

Susangat Engineering Works and Vs. Commssioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT59Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The three appeals namely 4483, 3507, 3528/98 are directed against a common order. Therefore the same are heard together and are being disposed off through a common order. The dispute relates to availability of benefit of full exemption from Central Excise duty to small scale units under Notification No.1/93 CE Dated 1.3.93. The appellants had affixed a brand "Amba", on the excisable goods. As a result of goods bearing the brand name, the departmental authorities proceeded to hold that the said brand "Amba" belongs to a person, other than the appellants and hence are ineligible for duty exemption. The appellants had pleaded that their case is covered by the instructions contained in Board's circular No.52/52/94 CX Dated : 1.9.94. It was claimed that, the goods cleared with the brand name by each of the units are not the same, but are quite different. It was also pleaded that, the brand "Amba" does not belong to any particular person. and can be freely used by any one. However, these...

Cassim M. Jadwet and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC153

1. The defendant Nos. 2 and 4 in O. A. No. 2367 of 2000 (High Court Suit No. 341 of 1984) have filed this Application for setting aside ex pane judgment dated 30th January 2003 passed by this Tribunal and revocation of the Recovery Certificate issued pursuant thereto.2. The grounds on which this application is rested are that the applicants are Calcutta based which fact was within the knowledge of the Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Bank. By letter dated 25th November, 1997, addressed to the Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Bank, the Advocate for the applicants expressly intimated the fact. The applicants have, however, a small liaison office in Bombay situated at Vaid Building, 3rd Floor, 102, Mohammed Ali Road, Mumbai-400003, which has a few employees and is usually kept closed. On or about 9th July, 2003, a Registered A.D. envelope on address at 95, Mohammed Shahid Marg, Bombay-400005 from this Tribunal was sought to be delivered at the liaison office. As the applicants were not...

Forum of Minority Management Institutions and ors. Vs. State of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR712; 2004(6)BomCR291; 2005(3)ESC2196

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In this batch of matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, three questions of law arise for adjudication, based on the submissions which have been urged by Counsel for the petitioners, before the Court:(1) Whether a separate Common Entrance Test can be permitted to be held for a professional course by an Association purporting to represent institutions conducted and managed by a religious or linguistic minority ?(2) Whether a separate Common Entrance Test can be permitted to be held in the State by an Association representing Unani Medical Colleges in the State ?(3) Whether the Committee constituted in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, : AIR2003SC3724 , is correct in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute raised before it in regard to the q...

Pushpam Ceramics and Peddar and Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the order-in-original Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Pune, whereunder demand of Rs. 2,28,806/- has been confirmed, (put of the total demand of Rs. 26,85,945/-) apart from imposition of penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s. Peddar and Peddar, other appellants, under Rule 209A for abetting duty evasion.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellants M/s. Pushpam Ceramics are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under sub heading Nos.3207.90, 2905.90 and 3206.10. In the course of internal audit, it was revealed that the appellants were also engaged in the manufacture of an item viz., PVA liquid (Polyvinyl Alcohol Solution) on the basis of job work. As per Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 conversion of one primary from of plastic into another plastic form (such as powder into solution) amounts to manufacture. I...

Shilpa Printing Press and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT276Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,10,800/- confirmed against the applicant (proprietary concern) and penalty of equal amount, and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon the Power of Attorney holder of the proprietary concern. The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of holding that the product in dispute was printed carton/top, folders used in packing of hosiery items which form a carton at the time of packing of the hosiery items, falling for classification under CETA sub-heading 4819.19 rejecting the claim of the applicants for classification of the goods as folders under Chapter heading 48.20 or under Chapter 49 as a product of printing industry.The period in dispute is 01/04/1997 to 31/03/1998.3. We are of the view that a strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out in the light of the apex Court decision in the case of G.Claridge & Company Ltd. v. CCE 1991 (32) ELT 341 (SC) wherein it has been held that the expression "containers...

Shiv Shakti Fabrics Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (G)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed upon the applicants for import of Embroidery Machine arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai. The applicants filed a Bill of Entry in 2002 for import of consignment of used Textile Schiffi Embroidery Machine, Computerised, declaring the year of manufacture as 1995 and seeking clearance under CTA heading 84479020 at a concessional duty rate of 5% by claiming the benefit under serial 250 (1), Sl.No. 57 of list 30 of Customs Notification No. 21/02-Cus. The goods were examined and found to be capable of embroidery designing with the aid of the jacuqard mechanism and not a computer based designing machine: the importer's declaration about the machine being computerised was found to be incorrect making the import non eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification, as the year of manufacturing shown as 1995 was also found to be incorrect as it has been reported that no such ma...

Siemens Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessed who are manufacturers of electric motors, switch gear items, switch board items, etc., challenge the confirmation of total duty demand of Rs. 6,52,642/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed against them by the authorities below. a) Demand of Rs. 5,55,483/-:- This demand has been confirmed on inputs cleared as such on the ground that the appellants were required to reverse duty equal to modvat credit taken thereon as per provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii)/57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the light of the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Limited 2000 (120) ELT 228 this demand is sustainable and we accordingly uphold the same. However, we set aside the penalty equal to the above amount which has been imposed under Rule 571(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for the reason that Rule 57F(4) is not applicable as credit has not been taken wrongly by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or supp...

In Re: India Infoline Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR411; (2005)3CompLJ134(Bom); [2004]53SCL396(Bom)

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Company namely India Infoline Ltd. (for short 'Petitioner Company'), having its registered office at Building No. 24, Nirlon Complex, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063, under Sections 78 and 100 to 104 of the Companies Act read with 46 to 65 Companies Rules, 1959 for 'Short Rules' (for short 'Companies Act'), for the utilisation of the Securities Premium Account for writing off accumulated losses and reduction of equity shares capital of India Infoline Ltd.2. The shares of the petitioner-company are not listed on any stock exchange. The petitioner company have three subsidiary companies; India Infoline Securities Private Ltd., India Infoline.com Distribution Company Ltd. and India Infoline Insurance Services Ltd. The petitioner-company is a member of National Stock Exchange of India and has its SEBI Registration No. INB 231097537. The company are Depository Participant/Member of the National Securitie...

In Re: Zee Telefilms Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)BC298; 2004(6)BomCR270; [2005]124CompCas102(Bom); (2004)3CompLJ422(Bom); [2004]53SCL387(Bom)

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Company Petition has been filed by Zee Telefilms Limited, having its registered office at Continental Building, 125, Dr. Annie Basant Road, Worli, Mumbai, for the purpose of reduction of Securities Premium Account of Zee Telefilms Limited by invoking the provisions of Sections 78 and 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Companies Act') and the Company (Court) Rules (for short 'Rules').2. The details of the authorised, issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the petitioner-company as on 31st March, 2004, i.e., the last audited balance sheet along with the unaudited balance sheet of the petitioner-company for the period 31st December, 2003 is reproduced in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Petition.3. As per the objects of the petitioner-company, as set out in their Memorandum of Association, they have an authority and power to reduce the share capital in case of urgency, need of exigency, within the framework of their Memorandum of Associatio...