Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Paranjape Auto Cast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein do not challenge the confirmation of duty of Rs. 2,31,790/- on sand moulds and castings etc. manufactured and cleared by them for processing outside their factory without debiting 10% of the value of such casting, but taking credit twice against single debits. The only plea is that the penalty of amount equal to duty imposed under Rule 571(4) and Rs. 5000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules is too harsh and required reduction.2. We note that the duty amount was paid vide PLA Entry No. 543 dated 30.1.1998 i.e. prior to the show cause notice which was issued on 27.3.1998. Keeping this in view, we reduce the penalty to total of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only. The appeal is thus partly allowed....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Electro Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT96Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application filed by the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who held that the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002 at Sr. No. 21 of table thereof is available to Roasted Molybdenum ore Concentrate imported by the respondent herein, is allowed, as prima facie case for the stay has been made out on the ground that once Roasted Ore Concentrate is received in the premises, it should be assessed and charged to duty, as Sr. No. 21 of the Notification 6/2002 exempts only ores from excise duty....

Lal Mining Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in the appeal is that the imposition of penalty on the ground that appellants were not registered dealers under the law and had issued inadmissible invoices for regulation of MODVAT credit.2. The undisputed facts are that the appellants had obtained registration as a dealer for MODVAT purpose under Rule 174 of the CER with effect from 30.09.1994 in requirement of the provision of Notification 32/94 and 33/94, read with Rule 57GG of the said Rules.Appellants claim is that along with their application for registration, they had also submitted a ground plan with address of the appellant's premises and go down. This was in requirement of Trade Notice 72/94 dated 08.04.1994. Therefore, on receipt of the communication dated 04.01.1995 from Superintendent, Range, drawing their attention to the said Trade Notice, they had informed of the existence of storage facility in go down and again submitted a copy thereof. These facts are established from the receipted communicati...

Associated Packaging Indus. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 28,20,479/- and penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs by Associated Packaging Industries and duty of Rs. 12,26,082.70 and penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs by Moneeto Plasti-Fab Pvt. Ltd. arise out of common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has confirmed the demands on the ground that the applicants herein manufacture laminated sheets falling for classification under Chapter sub-heading No. 3920.38 and rejecting the assessees claim for classification as "Coated fabrics" under Chapter sub-heading 3926.90.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the process of product in dispute that there are two independent layer or surfaces which are bonded together to form lamination unlike only one surface existing on which a layer of another material is applied to form what is called coating and that the product is laminated, and not coated product. The Ld Counsel for the applicants would point out that the...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Nufab Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee herein is a manufacturer of PTY/Twisted yarn falling under Chapter Heading 5402 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 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 to fictitious buyers at a lower value while actually transferring the goods to godown at Bhiwandi and later selling them at higher prices, search was conducted in the godown in Bhiwandi and the premises of transporters. Show cause notices were 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 warehouses of the transporters at Bhiwandi and that the sale price shown in the invoice did not reflect the correct assessable value since the buyers names shown in the invoices were fictitiou...

Crown Frozen Foods Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Mum.)485

under section 80HHCDeduction under section 80HHC was allowed in respect of profit on sale of DEPB licence and also in respect of export incentive earned on export made through export house. The CIT invoked section 263 and directed, the AO to recompute deduction as same was allowed in excess. Held: Order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial order as in the order under section 143(3), the deduction under section 80HHC was allowed after detailed discussion with assessee s representative.1. This appeal is by the assessee against the order of CIT, passed under Section 263 in respect of asst. yr. 2000-01. The summarized grounds taken by the assessee are as under: "1. The learned CIT erred on facts and in law in revising the assessment order under Section 263 of the IT Act. 1961, (the Act) without appreciating that even assuming that the DEPB entitlements were not covered by Section 28(iiia)(iiib), the same would not be deductible from profits of the business as per claus...

Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal Karta of R.M. Dhariwal (Huf) and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR481; 2005(3)BomCR104; 2005(2)MhLj611; 2005(31)PTC401(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present chamber summons has been taken out by the plaintiff under order 6 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for carrying out amendment to the plaint. 2. Some of the material facts in the present case briefly stated are as under :3. Originally a suit was filed by the plaintiff against Mr. Kishore Washwani in his capacity as the proprietor of a business known as Messrs M.S.S. Food Products. The said suit was filed for the purpose of perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendant from passing off or selling or attempting to sell or offering for sale or from distributing or attempting to distribute or dealing in or attempting to deal in Supari Mix or goods of similar description bearing mark 'Malikchand' or any mark or label identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' Trade Mark 'Manikchand'. Further reliefs are sought of accounts and/or other consequential and incidental reliefs. The said suit came to be filed on 3.2.2004 and an ex-parte ...

Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha a Trade Union Registered Under the Trade Unions ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR130

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition challenges an order dated 22nd November 2000 of the Industrial Court, Thane in Application (MRTU) No. 4 of 2000 passed on an application under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Industrial Court framed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the application filed by the Applicant Union i.e. Respondent No. 1 herein against the non-applicant Union i.e. the Petitioner Union herein. The Industrial Court found that the application was maintainable. The contention of the Petitioner, that once an application filed under Section 14 was disposed of for any reason whatsoever, the Industrial Court could not entertain fresh application made by that Union for recognition in place of the already recognised Union, unless a period of one year had elapsed since the disposal of the previous application of that Union, was rejected. 2. The P...

The Board of Trustees of the Port Vs. Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR633

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.Leave to amend.1. The Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal held by an award dated 18th May, 1999 that the enquiry that was conducted against the First Respondent stood vitiated due to a failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry Officer have been held to be perverse. The action of the Port Trust in reducing the pay of the First Respondent by four stages has been held not to be justified and the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands answered accordingly. 2. The First Respondent was working in the year 1991 as a Depot Superintendent in the Stores Department of Mumbai Port Trust and was attached to the stationary, uniforms and steel sections. The Port Trust had to store a huge quantity of coal in order to run its steam engines on Port Trust Railway lines. The steam engines were discontinued in 1990 and about 800 M.T. of coal was lying unused in the Loco Shed at Wadala...

Vfc Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rashesh N. Shah, Shares and Brokers Pvt. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR163(Bom); 2005(3)BomCR100; 2005(2)MhLj386

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's petition Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an award.2. The appeal raises for consideration the scope of the power of the court Under Section 34 of the 1996 Act to interfere with the decision of an arbitral tribunal regarding their jurisdiction based on their interpretation of the arbitration agreement. We have come to the conclusion that this power is limited by the same principles and to the same extent as the power of the Court to interfere with the interpretation of an arbitral tribunal of any other contractual provision.3. The respondent was the claimant before the sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings concluded under the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSEIL). The Arbitrator awarded only the principal sum of Rs. 3,62,738.08 ps. to be paid by the appellant to th...