Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

S.S. Alloys Products Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit in respect of penalty amount of Rs. 51,757/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Seven only). The appellants have already deposited the duty amount of Rs. 51,757/- before issuing the Show Cause Notice. The ld.Counsel relied upon the following decisions - i) 2004 (62) RLT 709 (CESTAT-LB) CCE, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. In both the cases, it has been held that when the duty amount was paid much prior to issuing the Show Cause Notice, no penalty can be imposed on adjudication of the matter. The amount of duty is RS. 51,757/- and an equal penalty amount of Rs. 51,757/- is imposed.3. The ld.DR relied upon the decision of Zunjarro Bhikaji Nagarkar v.UOI 1999 (32) RLT 125(SC). The said judgment has already been referred by the Larger Bench in the case of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. In this case, there is no clandestine removal of the goods, even then equal amount of penalty is imposed, though the duty was deposited even b...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Colourtex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR234

1. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the above applications are that the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, passed an order dated 26.12.2003 which was challenged by way of filing appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The appeals were heard by the West Zonal Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai and two opinions were expressed by the Members of the bench who heard the appeals - while the Member (Technical) held that the appeals were required to be rejected, the Vice President held that the appeals were required to be allowed. Due to the difference of opinion, the following question was formulated and placed before the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal for reference to third Member for resolving the difference: Whether the appeals are required to be rejected as held by Member (Technical) OR whether the appeals are required to be allowed as held by Vice President.2. Pursuant to the above, the Hon'ble President referred the matter to a third Member. The hearing scheduled for 20...

Strategem Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 1,81,171/- and penalty of equal amount plus a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- upon M/s. Strategem Media Pvt. Ltd. and a penalty of Rs. 1,81,171/- upon its Director, arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has upheld the liability of the company to Service Tax under the heading 'Advertising Agency'.2. We have heard both sides. The question as to whether the services rendered, namely, media planning & budgeting, and evaluation sales strategy development, analysis and interpretation of NRS/IRS Data, presentation development on latest NRS data and media consultancy would come within the scope or the services rendered by an advertising agency, is something on which no prima facie view can be expressed and has to be gone into when the appeals are taken up for final hearing.Having regard to the plea of financial hardship, we direct pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) out of the serv...

Pennzoil Quakar State India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs. 37,44,287/- on finished goods found short and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. None appears for the applicants in spite of notice. The matter came up for hearing yesterday and since none was present, we adjourned it today; but even today none appears for the applicants. Hence we heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. It is brought to our notice by the Ld D.R. that the applicants admitted the shortage and the consequent duty liability. Therefore no case for total waiver has been made out.In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct pre deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) towards duty within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this order and on such deposit, pre deposit of balance of duty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with the aforesaid order shall result in vacation ...

Fibrotex (Processors) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs. 7,93,029/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The demand has been confirmed on rubber latex solution. The issue of classification of this product stands settled against the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision dated 1.4.2004 in their own case in Civil Appeal No. 4099/98. The classification stands con finned under Chapter Heading 40.05. The plea of the applicants, before us, is that for the period up to February 1997 the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 15% in terms of Notification 377/86 is available and that for the period thereafter (the demand in this case is for the period October 1986 to May 1988), the benefit of exemption from payment of duty under captive consumption notification 217/86 is available. We findprima facie force in the submission that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 15% for the reason that the goods have bee...

Ambica Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application filed by the Appellant for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount and to grant stay from its recovery. The appellants M/s. Ambica Syntex Pvt. Ltd. 272/2, GIDC, Pandesara, Surat, are engaged in the processing of man-made fabrics falling under chapter Heading 5406.22 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are doing job-work for the Merchant - Exporter. Before the Finance Bill, 2003-04, presented in Parliament on 28.02.2003, the rate of duty on the man-made processed fabrics, falling under Chapter Heading 5406, the rate of duty was 12%. But by virtue of Notification No. 07/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, the rate of duty was reduced from 12% to 10%. But the Range Officer has clarified that the reduced rate of duty comes into effective from 01.04.2003 and for the month of March, 2003, the effective rate of duty was 12%.3. The independent Textile Processors were not availing actual Cenvat Credit on the Grey Fabrics i.e. input, because the same was not liab...

Smt. S. Bhagyalaxmi Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the General Mana ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC731; 2006ACJ1559; AIR2006Bom53; 2006(1)ALLMR379; 2006(1)BomCR14; 2006(1)MhLj818

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. These are five appeals filed by the respective claimants/appellants against the judgment and order dated 29th June, 1989 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Thane (Railway Accident Tribunal) in Railway Accident Claim Nos. 14 of 1988, 15 of 1988, 12 of 1988 and 13 of 1988 and order dated 27th July, 1989 in Railway Accident Claim No. 16 of 1988 whereby their respective applications for compensation under Section 82(A) of the Indian railways Act, 1890 (for short 'Railway Act of 1890') were rejected. As all the appeals are arising out of a common accident and as the issues are same and as contended by all the parties, by this common judgment these appeals are disposed off.2. On 4th July, 1988 a train Minar Express 101 Dn. met with an accident between Byculla and Chinchpokli Railway Station of Central Railway, Bombay, in which the claimants/appellants sustained various injuries on various parts of the body as mentioned and referred in their respective appl...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nippon Steel Corporation Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR238(Bom); 2006(1)MhLj836

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th January, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the arbitration petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the ground of it being time barred under Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the appellants as 'ONGC' and the respondents as 'Nippon'.3. Brief facts which are necessary for the consideration of the controversy in appeal are thus :(a) ONGC and Nippon entered into the agreement on 28th December, 1985 in respect of South Bassein Central Facility Complex about 80 kms west of Bombay in the Arabian Sea.(b) The disputes and differences arose between them under the said contract which were referred to the arbitration of Justice D.V. Patel (Retd.) and Dr. S.R. Jain.(c) The arbitrators passed the award on 2nd March, 1996.(d) On that very day i.e. 2nd March, 1996 the arbitrators forwarded the award dated 2nd March, 1996 to M/s Little and...

Veegee Products Vs. Sou. Nayan Bharat Davda

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC232(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Additional District Judge at Solapur, while allowing an interlocutory application in a suit for infringement of a trademark restrained the appellant by an order of injunction from manufacturing, marketing or stocking a disinfectant powder under the trademark 'Carbo-dust' during the pendency of the suit.3. On 21st December 2000 the Respondent applied for the registration of its product 'Herbo-dust', bearing No. 978702-B. Herbo-dust is a disinfectant powder used for spraying in ditches, nullahs, urinals and stagnant water. In the meantime, on 28th March 2003 a Drug Licence came to be issued to the Appellant under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. for the manufacture of a disinfectant carbolic powder bearing the mark 'Carbo-dust'. In the Trademarks Journal dated 14th November 2003, the trademark of the Respondent, 'Herb...

Gebi Bapuji Banjari (Yerwal) Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR348; 2006(2)MhLj697

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This is an application for review of an order passed by A.B. Naik, J. on 3-5-2001 dismissing the Civil Revision Application filed by the review-petitioner taking exception to the rejection of his application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The review-petitioner is a person whose land was acquired for the purpose of expansion of Gaothan. The Land Acquisition Officer issued appropriate notification. The review-petitioner had demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre. By an award dated 1-1-1999, the review-petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs. 27,388/-. The amount of compensation was received by the review-petitioner on 1-11-1999. On 10-12-1999, the review-petitioner filed a reference petition before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Officer for being forwarded to the District Court. The Land Acquisition Officer refused to make the reference by observing that the review-petitioner...