Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Vijay Deep Fabrics and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This miscellaneous applications are filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was submitted that there is a delay of 25 days for filing the instant appeals.3. Ld. Advocate pleads that, before passing of the instant order-in-appeal which is under challenge, the appellants had succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the penalty imposed on the applicants by the adjudicating authority was set aside. It was therefore stated that, the subsequent order (which is under challenge) could not have been passed for the same set of events, holding a different view and penalising the appellants. Accordingly, they did not think it necessary to challenge the said order. However, on realising the fact that unless challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), would continue against them the instant appeals were filed. Hence it is pleaded that due to late r...

Bharat Garments and Textiles P. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT58Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby duty of Rs. 10,75,081/- together with interest at rate of 24% was confirmed against the appellants. Amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- which was deposited was adjusted against the duty, penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant Company and Rs. 1,00,000/- on Shri Rajendra F. Doshi.2. We have heard the DR. None is present for the appellants, despite notice.3. The case against the appellants is that, they imported a total quantity of 9182 Kg of Mulberry Raw silk of Chinese origin duty free against various bills & entry against quantity based advance licences.It was noticed that the appellants failed to complete the export obligation and sold the said goods in the local market. Since, it was an admitted fact that there was a failure in completing the export obligation and imported goods were not used in the export production, the aforesaid duty was confirmed and penalties imposed.4. I...

Arihant Chemicals and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant in appeal No. E-870/04-Mum, an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1994, is engaged in the manufacture of Printed Self.Adhesive PVC stickers/strips avails benefit of credit of duties paid on inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the exercisable goods; the other appellants are its Managing Director and other executives and dealers, registered under the Central Excise Rules to issue invoices on common notice, consequent to enquiries conducted by the officers alleging i) Credit has been availed by the assessee, fraudulently on the basis of dealers invoices without, having received the goods mentioned in such invoices and/or using/consuming the same in the manufacture of final products. ii) Assessee having utilized such fraudulent credit for payment of duty on the final products and submitting false return. iii) The dealers were alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rule 57GG for having issued invoices without goods and indicating on the invoices false deta...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Kheraj Electricals Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT413Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This revenue appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal involves a short point. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal filed by the revenue, because the said appeal was directed against the order of adjudication passed by the Joint Commissioner, whereas the appeal was filed under Section 35E (1) by an authority other than the adjudicating authority.In terms of provisions contained in Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner of Central Excise is required to direct the adjudicating authority to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Instead, in the instant case the appeal was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as not maintainable in law. The revenue appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. On going through the grounds of appeal it is seen that the revenue is placing reliance of the provisions of Section 35E of ...

Bhimashankar Sidram Katke Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR71; 2005(2)BomCR395; (2005)107BOMLR871; 2005(1)MhLj406

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Shri N.V. Vechalekar for the petitioner. Perused the records. The petitioner challenges the order of termination of services on the ground that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner and secondly that the petitioner was duly confirmed after completion of the probation period and that therefore could not have been terminated taking resort to the provisions of law contained in Rule 4(ii) of the Maharashtra Family Courts Rules, 1987, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'. Attention is drawn to the order dated 13-1-1998 while contending that the petitioner was duly confirmed in the post in which he was appointed.2. Bare perusal of the order dated 13-1-1998 discloses that on completion of the probationary period of two years, the petitioner was continued on the officiating basis as the marriage counselor. There was no confirmation order or letter issued in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary the order dated 13-1-1998, which was issued a...

Vinod Shashank Chakor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. H.D. Merchant Since Deceased Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR190; 2004(4)MhLj873

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges the judgment had order of the appellate Bench of the Small causes Court, Bombay allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree for possession passed against the respondent by trial Court.2. The facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are short and are stated below:-The suit property which consists of a flat on the ground floor in the building known as 'Neela House' situated in a posh locality in Bombay at Carmichael Road, (Peddar Road) belongs to the petitioner company. The respondent is a tenant occupying the suit flat since long on the monthly rent of Rs. 456.36. The respondent was in arrears of rent from 1st October 1967 to 31st May 1968. By a notice dated 18th June 1968, the petitioner demanded the rent which was paid by the respondent. As the respondent again fell in arrears of rent from 1st July 1968 till 31st May 1969, by another notice dated 11th February 1969 the petitioner demanded the arrears of rent which th...

Somnath J. Ubale Vs. Deputy Director of Education

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR768; 2005(2)BomCR416; 2005(1)MhLj949

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-5-2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Pune rejecting the request of respondent No. 1 for condoning the condition of five years experience in relation to the appointment of the petitioner as Head Master.2. Facts giving rise to this petition stated briefly are that the petitioner belonging to backward class was a senior teacher in respondent No. 1-Society's School. When it came to appointment of Head Master whose experience and other attaining circumstances the Management appointed the petitioner as Head Master though he did not possess experience of five years as contemplated in the Rules. This action of the Management was disapproved by the Education Authorities by its order dated 3-7-2001. The petitioner therefore approached this Court against that order in Writ Petition No. 3627 of 2001 which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-8-2001. The order impugned dated 3-7-2001 ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Blue Blend (i) Ltd., Sethia

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessees herein are engaged in the manufacture of PTY/Twisted Yarn falling under CET Sub-Heading 54.02. On the basis of intelligence received by officers of the Anti-Evasion Directorate that they are indulging in evasion of duty by resorting to under-valuation and clandestine clearances of PTY, that they were clearing PTY from the factory gate at a lower value in the name of fictitious and non existent firms while goods were actually being cleared at godown Bhiwandi, (Maharashtra) from where they are subsequently being sold through brokers to actual buyers at higher value, search was conducted by officers in the godown at Bhiwandi where PTY cleared from Daman, Silvassa units of the assesses was stored and also the premises of the Transporters, and records were seized. Show cause notices were thereafter issued alleging that the assessees have issued invoices to show that the sale had been effected at the factory gate whereas sales were actually effected from godown and warehous...

Bill Metal Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In this case the appellants made a payment of Rs. 1 lakh as redemption fine for redeeming the vehicle, which was confiscated.Thereafter, the appellants succeeded in their appeal filed before the tribunal and were consequently entitled to refund of the said amount of redemption fine. However, the department instead of suo-motto grating the refund of the said amount, held the amount with them. The appellants, thereafter took the law in their own hand and took credit of Rs. 1 lakh in their PLA by referring to the TRG challan on the basis of which the amount of Rs. 1 lakh UK was paid towards redemption fine.The departmental authorities objected to this suo motto utilisation of the said TR-6, challan relating to the payment of redemption fine, for the purpose of taking credit in the PLA. The credit of the said amount was treated as non-existent and the despatches utilising the said credit were accordingly treated as removals without payment of duty.3. I note that, since the appellant ha...

Shri M.C. Agarwal, Shri S.M. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT969Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant company (M/s. C. Lajapalrai CTM Textile Mills ) manufactures cotton fabrics and man made fabrics falling under Chapter 54 & 55 of CETA 1985. The period of dispute is September 1992 to September 1993. During the relevant period MMF were chargeable to Additional Excise Duty under Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 at the rate specified vide Notification No.48/90-CE dated 20.3.90 and were exempt from Basic Excise Duty Cotton fabrics were wholly exempt from payment of BED under Notification No.53/91CE during 92-93 and from payment of AED leviable under AED (GS1) Act, 1957 vide Notification No. 48/90.2. Pursuant to a seizure of 22096 Lmts of MMF on 30.6.93 which were being carried in hand carts without payment of duty mis- declaring tham as cotton fabrics, a detailed investigation was earned out by the Central Excise officers. The investigation seemed to have revealed that the appellant company and its directors indulged in removing MMF in t...