Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Eastern Medikit Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT228Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein imported a consignment of 'Medical disposal goods' on re-import vide Bill of Entry dated 6-12-1999. The consignment was assessed at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995 and clearance was allowed in terms of the Notification on execution of a bond undertaking to re-export the same within six months. The Asstt.Commissioner of Customs ordered enforcement of the bond on failure to re-export the goods within the stipulated period of six months. The Adjudication order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal by the importer.2. The reliance placed by the ld. Counsel for the appellants on CBEC Circular No. 14/97, dated 3-6-97 clarifying that the time period of six months under the Notification, for the purpose of re-export, is to be calculated from the date of actual clearance of the goods and not from the date of filing of the B/E, is misplaced as in the present case the...

Space Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant/applicant has filed the ROM application inter alia stating that the appellant has already paid the Service Tax along with the interest of Rs. 5 lakhs for the delayed payment. The appeal was filed against the imposition of penalty amount. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the lower authorities have not considered the ground of ailment taken by the appellant and no finding has been given by them on the said explanation. He submitted that where the Service Tax has been deposited along with interest without collecting the same from the clients, no penalty is imposable, particularly in view of the fact that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. Delayed payment was only because of his serious ailment. He is the only person responsible for the affairs of the Company. He also contended that the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal has also not taken into consideration the ground of ailment. He emphatically submitted that ...

Everett (i) Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

a) Penalty of Rs 2 lakhs has been imposed on a proprietor of CHF firm and on Shri I.R. Gori and on M/s Everett (I) Pvt Ltd in a case were the container declared to be containing moongdal was found to be containing imported Cigarettes which were not declared. The container was shown to have been imported in the name of M/s Avadh Agri Exports and a Bill of Entry in that name of the importer was filed by the CHA based on forged and bogus certificate of authorization by the said M/s Avadh Agri Exports. The CHA has also obtained the delivery orders from M/s Everett (I) Pvt Ltd after they produced the Bill of lading to them. The Role of Shri I.R. Gori was that of introducing one Shri Bhanushali and bringing the papers for clearance in this case. They have been imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each. b) Considering the role played and the total value and duty on the Cigarette which were not declared to the Customs and were ordered to be confiscated, we would consider this to be a fit case to ...

Shankar Maruti Kumbhar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR422; 2005(4)BomCR173; 2005(2)MhLj1150

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners own lands in the benefited zone. The respondents issued notification under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. Subsequent thereto notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, notifying the intention of the appropriate Government to acquire an area of 81 Ares out of land bearings Gat No. 873 and an area of 0.40 Ares out of the land bearings Gat No. 809. The case of the petitioners is that by virtue of that the petitioners would not be left with even 1 Acre of and the total holding of the petitioners are not more than 8 Acres and consequently the land should not be acquired. They filed objections on 10th November, 1997 which were received. As nothing was done, legal notice came to be served through the petitioners Advocate on 9th March, 1998. It is also pointed out that previously land bearing Gat No. 179 admeasuring 2 Hectares and 87 Ares was a tenure land in the hands of the petitio...

Shrirang Atmaram Nikam Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR573; 2005(4)BomCR176; 2005(3)MhLj245

R.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner is working as a Bailiff in the subordinate Court. He was appointed vide office order No. 114 dated 17th April, 1989. He was confirmed by office order No. 384. It is the case of the petitioner that since then he is working satisfactorily as a Bailiff and is discharging his duties and responsibilities to the satisfaction of all concerned. Till date he has not received promotion. It is his further case that on completion of 12 years of service in terms of G. R. he would be entitled for assured promotional scale or time bound promotion scale. The petitioner, however, was not given the benefit of the said G.R. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not aware of the reasons as to why he was not given the benefit. On 30th October, 2003 he was intimated by communication of the adverse remarks in the confidential report from 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2003 which are as follows :--1. Relations with colleagues and Public : Unfri...

Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai and ors. Vs. Vidyadhar Pandurang R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)ILLJ309Bom

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court upholding the employee's right to be represented by one Jaiprakash Sawant in a domestic enquiry. The learned single Judge has rejected the appellants' contention that the said Sawant is not entitled to represent the employee because he is a legal practitioner prohibited from appearing in the enquiry by virtue of Regulation 12(8) of the Bombay Port Trust Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'the Regulations'.2. The enquiry officer objected to the appearance of Jaiprakash Sawant, admittedly a qualified advocate, on the ground that he is a legal practitioner and consequently not entitled to represent the respondent employee. The respondent then made a representation dated April 23, 2004 contending inter alia that Regulation 12(8) permits appearance of office bearer of a trade union in such an enquiry irrespective of ...

Shri Benny Fernandes S/O Marshal Fernandes Vs. Shri John Agnelo Fernan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)ACC858; (2005)107BOMLR827

A.P. Lavande, J.1. The appellant who was the claimant in Claim Petition No. 211 /92 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, challenges the judgment and award dated 6th December, 1999, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the claimant'.2. Briefly, the case of the claimant is that on 16th January, 1992, at about 4.00 p.m. at Borimol on the Curchorem-Quepem Road, respondent No. 1 drove a two wheeler bearing registration No. GDH 7962 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter bearing No. GA-02-B-2732 driven by the claimant. As a result of the clash the claimant was thrown off the road and he suffered injuries, namely fracture of the right hand thumb and injuries to the shoulder and head. The petition was contested by respondent No. 2. According to respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 was driving the scooter at a moderate speed with his wife ...

Mansinh B. Kapadia Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)BC309

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondent.2. The petitioner is challenging an order of issuance of process against the petitioner passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in the Case No. 127 1/S/93. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner resigned from the company on 24th December, 1997 and intimation was given to the Registrar of Company on 28th January, 1998. The cheques on the basis of which the complaint was filed were issued on 28th March, 1998 and 28th June, 1998. The intimation about the dishonour was received on 31st July, 1998 by the complainant and thereafter, complaint was filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has annexed xerox copy of the certified copy of the Form-32 issued by the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that the petitioner was not concerned with the conduct of business of the company on the date on which cheques were issued and the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raymond

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT868Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides in this appeal filed by revenue, this order is being passed. The respondents are a composite Mill. They manufacture woollen yarn, polyester yarn, wool tops, polyester tops etc and consume the same captively, without payment of Basic/Additional duty (T&TA) on the yarn and tops manufactured. The goods arc captively consumed without filing C.L/Declaration for the same, as required under Rule 173 B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, with deliberate intention to evade payment of duty and willfull suppression of the facts is alleged to fraudulently avail the exemption under Notification No. 67/95 by the Show Cause Notice issued to Commissioner vide his order discharged the notice on the grounds a. Section 3(1) of additional duty of excise (T&TA) Act, 1978 fixes the measure of levy and says that this will be equal to 15% of total amount chargeable as excise duty under Central Excise Act, 1944 read with any notification issued in relation to the duty so chargea...

Tradewell Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are being disposed off by this common order. After hearing both sides it is found - a) The issue involved is imposition of fine on the consignment of woollen rags which were found to be old and used woollen garments the values were enhanced from the declared value of Rs. 1,77,000/-to Rs. 1,14,000/- & Rs. 6,45,000/- to 1,50,000/-. The market value therein was not worked out and demurrage of Rs. 4 lakhs approximately. These consignment were not reckoned to determine the redemption fine. The redemption fine imposed were Rs. 4.5 lakhs in each of the two imports & penalty were imposed on the Partnership Firm and the Partner. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4.5 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs only in one case and not in the other case & set aside the penalty on the Partner by holding no mens rhea and intention on his part to violate the Customs Act provisions. b) We would consider that the benefit of demurrage of Rs. 4 lakhs to be elig...