Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Parle Beverages

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT283Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal. The respondent are an assessee engaged in the manufacture of Aerrater Water. Show cause notice was issued to them proposing recovery of differential duty on account of deductions claimed in terms of Section 4 (4) (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944; in respect of Turnover Tax leviable under Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was held by adjudicating authority that turn over tax recovered from customers but not paid / payable to the State Government would form additional consideration in term of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The demand for differential duty was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner; Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has allowed the appeal holding that violation Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 has no application in the present case since the assessable value could be de ermine under Section 4(1) (a) of under Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence this appeal by Revenue.2. After hearing both sides and considering the issue in...

Ameet Industrial Corporation and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC626

1. These five appeals are taken up together for disposal as the subject matter and the legal issues involved are identical. These appeals arose out of five different orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai, on various dates. The Commissioner in the impugned orders confiscated the goods, imposed redemption fines and also imposed penalty on the person from whose possession the goods were seized.Hence these appeals.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal Description Quantity Value of Duty Redemp- Penalty No. of goods of MT goods (Rs.) (Rs.) tion fine (Rs.) (Rs.)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C/151 Imported 16.8 10,31,875/- 6,92,248/- 1,10,000/- 28,400/- stainless-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C/170 -do- 25.780 15,83,437/- 10,62,270/- 1,70,000/- 42,454/----------------------------------------------------------------------...

India Containers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT303Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority demanding a sum of Rs. 51,63,623/- towards the differential duty payable on the revised value arrived at for the metal containers manufactured and cleared by the applicant during the period July 1998 to January 2001. The Commissioner also confirmed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. The issue involved is whether the value of the Caps of the Metal Containers should be considered as a part of the container in which case the value of such part will have to be added to the value of the container for the purpose of assessssment or whether such caps should be considered as accessories of the container, in which case its value cannot be added. The second issue involved is as to the correct value of the cap. The lower authorities took the value of 50 paise per caps whereas the applicant claims it should be paise 1.8 per piece cap.4. The Ld. Advocate appearing f...

Deendayal Magasvargiya Sahakari Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,50,61,343/- and penalty of equal amount imposed on the applicant company and penalties of Rs. 25 lakhs each imposed on its chairman and deputy manager, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II.2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant company is a 100% export oriented undertaking engaged in the manufacture and export of cotton yarn falling under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The applicants are entitled to clear 50% of FOB value of export goods into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) as provided in para 9.9 of the Exim Policy 1997-2002 and para 6.8 of the Exim Policy 2002-2007. During the relevant period the applicants availed of the provision under the said paras. Along with the cotton yarn sold into DTA, the applicants were selling cotton waste which arose out of the manufacture of cotton yarn into domestic market. Cotton waste is exempt from payment of central excise duty. The...

Mr. A.K. Patel Vs. the Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR645

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Labour Court by its two judgments dated 23rd July 1999, came to the conclusion that the complaints filed before it by the two Petitioners before the Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, were not maintainable on the ground that neither of the two Petitioners is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently, not an employee within the meaning of the former Act. The orders have been called into question in these proceedings under Article 226. The evidence which has been recorded in the two complaints is common and the facts are similar. The two petitions have been heard together and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this judgment bearing in mind when the need thus arises, the factual distinction, such as there may be, between the two cases. 2. In Writ Petition 57 of 2002, the Petitioner is an Engineer with a degree of Bachelor of E...

Susaka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom257; 2005(3)BomCR58; 2005(2)MhLj327

1. Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, appeal called out and heard.2. The appellant company was given the work for repairs of starters in terms of the agreement dated 19th December, 1994. The contract was to be completed on or before 30th December, 1995. The duration of the contract was for a period of 15 months. There is no dispute that the said contract was extended on various occasions upto August, 1996. It appears that on 1st December, 1995, the appellant wrote to the respondents that 3 starters are ready for dispatch and thereafter on 11th December, 1995, the appellant wrote to the respondents to release further 8 starters for repairs. The respondents did not give to the appellant any further starters for repairs. Thus, the dispute having arisen the matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 9th September, 2002 allowed various claims made by the appellant on which interest has been al...

Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Rui Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR260

Lavande A.P., J.1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the legality of the judgment and Award dated 20-2-1999, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 126/95.2. Notification dated 20-1-1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Government, acquiring large chunks of land for Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. An area of 8350 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 272 /1 (part) of Cuncolim Village, Salcete Taluka was acquired by the said Notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made his Award on 6-5-1994 and awarded Rs. 4/ - per sq. metre for an area of 8275 sq. metres and Rs. 2/- per sq. metre in respect of 75 sq. metres of nallah. The respondent being aggrieved by the Award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, sought reference claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. metres. In Land Acquisition Case No. 126/1995, the respondent examined two witnesses. He exami...

Municipal Council Vs. Ramesh Mukund Lokhande

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR565]

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.8.1993 passed by the Labour Court in Ref. (IDA) No. 16/90.A reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik Division, Nashik vide its order dated 26.6.1990 to the Labour Court.2. The respondent raised contention that he was working from 18.6.1983 to 30.2.1986 as Octroi Clerk for three years and he completed 240 days in each year. While he had gone to attend to his office duty on 1.4.1986, the petitioner-employer did not allow him to join his duties and orally terminated his services. The respondent was working from 14.12.:i977 to 6.2.1978 in leave vacancy. He also worked in census department maintained by the Municipal Council from 9.3.1981 to 15.2.1982. It was further contended that the office of the Chief Officer issued a certificate that he was in service. His oral termination was wrong and illegal. Therefore, he prayed for reinstatement with back-wages.3. The petitioner filed reply...

Cosme Remedies Ltd., Wallace Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These stay applications arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise who adjudicated Twenty-five show cause notices issued to the appellants. "The issue raised in these notices is related to valuation of excisable goods i.e. medicaments, in a situation where medicaments are being manufactured on loan license arrangement, wherein the raw material and packaging materials are supplied by one holding the loan license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the loan licensees) and the medicaments are manufactured at the premises of another manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as the job worker). From the investigation conducted by the department, it appeared that the loan licensees have obtained licenses for manufacture of the said medicaments from the Drug Licensing authorities and the said medicaments were manufactured by the loan licensees using the factory premises, equipments and expert staff of the job workers. All records were maintained b...

Lodhia Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

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 penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs imposed upon the appellants herein, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein imported goods under Bill of Entry Nos. 200 and 201 both dated 23.4.2003. In Bill of Entry No. 200, the goods were declared as 'Synthetic Knitted Pile Fabrics' falling under Customs Chapter Tariff Heading No. 6001.00 and the declaration in Bill of Entry No. 201 was 'Polyester Fabrics' classifiable under CTH 5407.52. The goods were tested; the goods covered by B/E No. 201 were found to be 'Woven Dyed Fabrics made of filament having short cut piles' and goods covered by the other B/E were found to be 'Decorated Knitted Fabrics having short piles on one side and wholly made of polyester'. On this basis, show cause not...