Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mahesh Textiles Private Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, had disposed off thirty-five appeals by common order dated 3 Nov. 1993. Aggrieved by the same, the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai-III has filed (one Appeal) E/371/94 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 19-9-2000 dismissed the said appeal at the preliminary stage holding that the department has failed to prefer other 34 appeals as envisaged under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. In view of the aforesaid situation, the department has subsequently filed other 34 appeals along with condonation of delay petitions. It is the contention of the department that filing of these appeals are formal in nature as issue to be decided in all the appeals is one and the same. Therefore it is prayed to condone the delay.3. The ld. advocate appearing for the assessee could not negate the contention of the department on any valid grounds.4. Having considered the observation made by this Tribunal in the earlier appea...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hari Vishnu Packaging

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT280Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The impugned order in original was passed by the Joint Commissioner dropping a demand of Rs. 3,91,275/- but imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,000/-. The said order was reviewed by the Commissioner and an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Deputy Commissioner as authorized by the Commissioner who reviewed the order.The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the Department's appeal without going into the merits of the case on the sole ground that the authorization given to the Deputy Commissioner to file appeal is not a valid authorization. While passing the said order he has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v.Collector of C.Ex., Meerut - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 498 (Tribunal). This appeal has been filed, against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Deputy Commissioner as authorized by the Commissioner. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the Dep...

Otis Elevator Company (India) Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 3.13 crores (approximately) against the appellants besides the penalties of equivalent amount imposed under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also against interest demanded from the appellants.2. The appellants are the manufacturers of Lifts and Elevators. The appellants had cleared certain parts of the elevators to their respective sites for affixing them in the lifts assembled at such sites. These parts are not being sold to any independent buyer and are being generally used for a particular lift under installation. Hence the assessable value thereof in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was required to be determined by resorting to Rule 6 (b) (ii) of The Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The dispute relates to the computation of assessable value. It has been alleged in the show cause notices issued to the appellants that, the appellants have failed to include certain admini...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Electrokrafts (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT531Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue involved in this appeal is classification of refrigeration centrifuges used in Blood plasma separation machines. The lower authorities have classified the same under Heading 84.21, while the Revenue wants the classification under Heading 84.19.3. From the order impugned, it is found that the Commissioner has arrived at the finding that, the refrigerated centrifuge is mainly used as centrifuge and refrigeration is only a secondary function of the machine used primarily for Blood Plasma Constituent separations.Thereafter reading Note 3 to Section XVI he concluded the classification under 84.21. The grounds taken by the Revenue that refrigerated centrifuge is mainly used as centrifuge, air-conditioner of refrigerated system and or any system which would provide change in temperature should be classified under 84.19 does not question this function of primary use and secondary use as arrived at by the Commissioner in the order impugned. We find no reasons therefore to upset th...

Shriram Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,07,81,957/- with an equivalent amount of personal penalty imposed under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 1,53,662/- imposed under Rule 173Q. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed on the second appellant. The duty has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in respect of M.S.Handles and S.S. Lifters manufactured by the appellants and cleared by them under tariff heading No. 7323.90, by holding the same as classifiable under heading No. 3926.2. The demand has been assailed by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants on the merit, as also on the point of limitation. As regards merits, he submits that the goods being part of household articles and having been made of mild steel, are properly classifiable under heading No. 73.23. He also submits that he demand for the period Oct 97 to Feb 2002 was raised by issuance of show cause notice date...

Power Build Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT45Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, and considering the matter, it is found that: a) the issue is classification of a machine which is being manufactured and cleared by the appellants, has been classified by the Commissioner (Appeals) under heading 84.23, while the appellants want the classification under heading 84.79 of the CETA, 1985. b) The machine as per the admitted position performs the following functions: "The machine consists of scale? type weighing mechanism, weigh hopper, feeding mechanism which could be of belt conveyor type, screw type or gravity type. The operator places empty sack on the bag holder and actuates the sack gripping clamps by a foot switch/hand switch. Once the sack is clamped, the whole operation is automatic. The flaps controlling the flow of material open immediately and the feeding mechanism starts filling the sack. Comparatively light materials like powder, flour, etc. are fed through the belt conveyor or screw type mechanism. The required weights are placed...

H.S. Zaveri, M.N. Hoda, Nrb Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT449Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 63,86,822/-(out of the total duty demand confirmed of Rs. 83,86,822/-, the applicant company has paid Rs. 20 lakhs on 19.7.1995 as noted in the impugned order) and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the importer together with penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each on three employees of the company in terms of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai. The demand arises as a result of Denial of the benefit of project import under the Customs tariff heading 98.01 and assessment of the imported machines with the benefit under notification 154/86-Cus. dated 1.3.1986.3. We find that by order reported in 2003 (159) ELT 755 in the case of CC, Mumbai v. NRB Bearing Ltd., the Tribunal held that the project import benefit is specific to unit and location and since the importer had installed the imported goods in their Thane unit instead of Waluj unit shown as the location in the ap...

Gal Offshore Services Limited Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92ITD525(Mum.)

1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A)-II at Mumbai dated 5-12-1997 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Assessee-company is carrying on the business of operating Rigs for ONGC in exploration of Mineral Oil. The Assessee-company filed its original return of income on 24-11-1994, declaring total income of Rs. 1,34,70,565. Thereafter a revised return was filed on 28-11-1995. The total income declared by the Assessee-company in its revised return of income was "Nil". The revised income was reduced to Nil for the reason that the Assessee has claimed an equal amount of deduction Under Section 33AC of the Income-tax Act.3. Section 33AC has been inserted in the Income-tax Act with effect from the assessment year 1990-91. The section provides the benefit of deduction to assesses engaged in shipping business so that such assessees may gen...

Dagdu Shripati Doiphode Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj1053

R.S. Mohite, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the Superintendent, Yerawada Central Prison, Pune to include the petitioner in the remission register of the prison and seeks a further direction- that the remission earned by him may not be deducted.2. The petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 304 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment and order of the Sessions Court dated 15-2-1994 passed in Sessions Case No. 426 of 1992.3. In pursuance of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court directing the Divisional Commissioner of Police, Pune Division to release the petitioner on a 30 days parole, the petitioner was released from Yerawada Central Prison on 1-4-1997. He was supposed to surrender on 2-5-1997 but did not do so. The petitioner was ultimately arrested by Wanvadi Police Station, Pune on 25-11-2001 and was therefore, late by 1668 days in surrendering.4. On 30-11-2001, Superintendent of Yerawada Central P...

B. Venugopalan Nair Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(104)FLR151]

F.I. Rebello and S.R. Sathe, JJ.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.The short issue that has arisen in this petition is whether the order of the appropriate Government refusing to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal can be sustained. The case of the petitioner is that he was working with respondent No. 2. It is his further case that his services were illegally terminated in as much as juniors to him were retained while he who was senior was retrenched. His further case is that he was called upon to receive retrenchment compensation under force. It is therefore, contended that the termination being illegal he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages. The matter was taken in conciliation. The Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report. The appropriate Government by order of 31-10-2003 refused to make the reference. Hence, the present petition.2. On behalf of the respondent employer, the learned Counsel contends that the petitioner took up the matter before the Conciliation Office...