Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Aasu Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon M/s. Aasu Textiles Private Limited arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Both the manufacturing unit and the Director have filed a joint application for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty imposed both on the textile unit as well as its Director. Since separate applications are required along with separate appeals we treat this appeal and stay application as one filed by Aasu Textiles Pvt. Ltd., and it will not be treated as a joint appeal and joint stay application in respect of the Director as well as the manufacturing unit. The Director required to file a separate appeal with stay application.2. We have heard both sides. We find that Prima facie penalty has been imposed on the textile unit for the reason that nylon polyester yam seized, belongs/to the applicant herein, was smuggled find liable to confiscation under Section 112(d) of the Customs Act. The contention of...

Relish Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 11,50,701/- and equivalent amount of penalty we find that it was possible to decide the appeal itself and hence after waiving pre-deposit we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Adjudicating authority has confirmed duty demand and imposed penalty; the appellants preferred appeal along with application for waiver of pre-deposit. The stay application was decided by an order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) directed to deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs and submit proof of compliance; and since such order was not complied with, the appeal was dismissed.3. We find substance in the plea of the appellants that their application for modification of the stay was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), who went on to dismiss the appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing. We also note that the issue in dispute is prima facie covered in favour o...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Metropolitan Springs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondents were manufacturers of steel forgings using iron rods as inputs. Rods and intermediate goods of steel were covered under erstwhile Tariff item No. 26AA (ia) and exempted, vide notification No.75/67 with respect to captive consumption of forgings, the notification was rescinded by notification No. 113/80 dated 19.6.80 effective 1.8.80. For the forgings cleared during the period 1.9.80 to 6.1.1981 for internal consumption without obtaining a licence and following the procedures and payment of duty the Respondent were placed on a notice for demand of Rs. 67,257/- which was conformed on 26.11.97 and penalty of Rs. 68,000/- was imposed along with interest under Section 11 AB.2. Commissioner appeals vide his order dated 25.8.99 set aside the order of the duty demand and penalty imposed on the grounds :- (i) Notices were issued on 22.6.81 & 24.10.81 and orders confirming the demand has been issued after 17 years (ii) Recording the submission, there is no disadvantage to rev...

i.C.i. (i) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

a) Matter involved the classification of certain entities which are claimed by the appellants to be under heading 3809.00, while Revenue has classified the same under heading 3402.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 based on test reports that the entities satisfy the chapter note 3 to chapter No. 34. The declarations made also admit the constituents to be having Surface Active agents. b) The classification of an entity would depend upon the scope of the entry, as it appears from head notes under chapter 34 or 38 as also the primary function of the entity in consideration. The use of the entity is as finishing/dry carrier/accelerators/fixing of dye-stuff agents. Whether these functions are primary or subsidiary when compared with the detergent function of the surface-active agents constituting the same, has to be determined. Merely because a finishing/clearing agent meets the specification of note 3 to chapter 34, its inclusion would not always be under chapter heading 3402. A reading...

DolphIn Impressions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT123Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, who in the impugned order upheld the order of the lower authority who demanded Rs. 5,25,111/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of corrugated boxes falling under chapter heading 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Corrugated boxes are exempt from payment of duty until 1.3.2001. They became excisable with effect from 1.3.2001. Such goods are also specified as goods eligible for small scale exemption by virtue of notification 6/2001. The appellants opted to avail of small scale exemption under the said notification. Under this notification, clearances upto an aggregate value of Rs. 100/- lakhs in a financial year are exempt from payment of duty. A financial year, as all concerned are aware, would start from 1^st April and ends on 31^st March. Thus the appellants would start enjoying the benefit of small scale exemption from 1^st April. As w...

Sukhdeo B. Alkunte Vs. Lalji Prasad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR18; [2004(102)FLR1048]; (2004)IIILLJ899Bom; 2004(3)MhLj865

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari against the orders dated 24th June, 2002 and 9th June, 2003 passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.2. The broad facts are not in disputes. The first respondent was employed by one Shivram Alkunte who carried on business as a sole proprietor in the firm name and style of M/s S. M. Alkunte. He was a contractor and had during his life time certain contracts with Tata Electric Company. Shivram Alkunte expired on 8th August, 1989.3. It is the first respondent's case, and I will assume for the moment it is correct, that one Mohan Alkunte, Shivram's nephew took over his business. In the first respondent's application under the said Act, the petitioner was Opponent No. 1 and Mohan was Opponent No. 2. The first respondent's contention is that Mohan Alkunte continued the business of Shivram. In fact in law, this would be a separa...

The Transport Manager, Kolhapur Municipal Transport Undertaking Vs. Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR297; 2004(5)BomCR10; [2005(104)FLR1009]; (2005)IILLJ104Bom; 2005(1)MhLj497; 2005(1)SLJ485(Bombay)

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Topkar waives service for Respondent No. 1 Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 need not be served being formal parties. By consent, Rule called out and heard.2. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 30th March 2002 passed by the Controlling Authority, Kolhapur in Application (PGA) No. 19 of 2000 allowing the application filed by Respondent No. 1 and the order dated 9th October 2003 of the Appellate Authority, Pune in Appeal (PGA) No. 2 of 2003 dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner.3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:On 19th October 1966 Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was employed with the Petitioner Undertaking and he was superannuated on 1st December 1999. As his gratuity was not paid, respondent No. 1 filed and application before the controlling Authority on 14th August 2000 claiming gratuity of Rs. 2,71,656/- for 33 years of service. The claim was made on the basis of the monthly wage...

Kishanchand Ottamlal Anandani Vs. Shankar Bapu Sawant Since Deceased b ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR181; 2005(1)BomCR362; 2004(4)MhLj757

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli on 7th March, 1991 dismissing Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1986 and confirming a decree for possession passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli.2. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by Shankar Bapu Sawant, the original respondent herein, who has died during the pendency of the suit and is being represented by his legal representatives. Sometime after the petitioner was inducted as a tenant, one Subanna Vithal @ Ramchandra Nalawade disputed the title of the, respondent No. 1 and claimed himself to be the owner. He also addressed two notices one dated 7th April, 1981 and another dated 14th July 1984 to the petitioner claiming that he was the owner of the property and the respondent was not the owner. In view of the dispute between the respondent and s Subanna Vithal @ Ramchandra Nalawade, the peti...

Balaso Narasu Chavare and anr. Vs. Sudhakar V. Sambare and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)ACC45; 2005ACJ1080; 2004(4)ALLMR726; 2005(2)BomCR335; 2004(4)MhLj256

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The short question involved in this Appeal is whether the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company can be absolved of payment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the tractor and the trailer attached to it were being used to transport bricks. According to the Insurance Company, if the tractor and the trailer which they had insured was used for transportation of bricks they were not bound to pay any compensation as there was a breach of the terms of the insurance policy.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants' son Sunil was employed by respondent No. 1 as a driver on the tractor which was insured by the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. The deceased met with an accident while driving the tractor. Since respondent No. 1 did not pay any compensation under the Act, the Appellants filed a claim under the Act. The claim has been decided in favour of the Appellants on 22nd December 1998. H...

Devki Nandan (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR1; 2004(6)BomCR51; 2005(3)ESC1974; [2005(104)FLR909]; (2005)IILLJ51Bom; 2005(1)MhLj382

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. On 8th June, 2004 also last opportunity of three weeks was granted to the respondent to file a reply with a clear understanding that no further adjournment will be granted and the matter will be heard and disposed off.3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner through his Power of Attorney. The petitioner was employed with respondents as Medical Officer since 26-8-1974. In the course of his employment he has served at various places. The last posting was as Port Health Officer, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis since last 20 years due to which he had to undergo five major joint replacement operations which are set out in Paragraph 5 of the petition. In February, 2002, he underwent a Coronary Artery Heart By-pass Surgery and was under medical treatment for two months. In July, 2002 he fractured his Ileum bone involving the right hip joint and was hospitalized for the sam...