Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Radico Khaitan Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(100)ECC514

ORDERJ.P. Devadhar, J.1. These two Writ Petitions which relate to import of American Oak Bourbon Barrels in shocks (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods' for short) were taken up together for final hearing.2. In Writ Petition No. 1091 of 1993 the dispute pertains to the refusal on the part of the customs authorities to issue detention certificate in respect of a consignment of the said goods for the period from 22.10.1992 to 4.11.1992. According to the revenue the detention certificate for the aforesaid period cannot be granted because the petitioner had not furnished the import licence during that period. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the import licence was submitted alongwith the bills of entry and, therefore, the denial of detention certificate for the period from 22.10.1992 to 4.11.1992 is totally erroneous.3. In Writ Petition No. 1314 of 1999 the petitioner has challenged the order of CEGAT dated 8.3.1999 wherein the Tribunal while upholding the order-in-ori...

Shyam Swaroop Mundra Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(185)ELT16(Bom)

ORDER1. This petition is directed against the Order No. 793/94, dated 27th October 1994 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India reviewing the Order-in-Appeal No. 597/93-B, dated 27th December 1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.The Facts:2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nut shell, are that on 30th May, 1992 a show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit to the petitioner amongst others. The main noticees Mr. Lakhani as well as the petitioner and other co-noticees were called upon to show cause as to why the gold seized from Mr. Lakhani should be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penal action should not be taken against all of them for conspiring with Mr. Lakhani to smuggle the seized goods.3. On 6th July, 1992 the petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice, inter alia, contending that the petitioner was neither connected with the goods ...

Parshuram Bama Mhatre Vs. S. Chakravarty, Commissioner of Police

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj76

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 8-10-2004 passed against the son of the petitioner. The name of the detenu is Shanidas Parshuram Mhatre. The order was served upon him on 9-10-2004. The detenu preferred the representation against the said order on 16-11-2004 which came to be rejected on 24-11-2004. The order of detention has been passed on the basis of C.R. No. 77 of 2004 in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the incident dated 4-6-2004 and three in-camera statements of the witnesses. The detenu was arrested in relation to the said incident but was bailed out on 9-6-2004 on execution of a personal bond for Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded on 6-9-2004 and of the third witness on 10-9-2004.3. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds, however, it is not necessary to consider a...

Yashwant Backward Class Housing Society Vs. Devidas Onkar Baviskar and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj113

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. These three petitions are being decided by this common judgment as the point involved in all the three petitions is the same.2. In all the three petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-11-1995, whereby, the learned Magistrate recalled the process and discharged the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 19/1985, 2/1985 and 182/1984, respectively. According to the petitioners, the order of discharge, passed by the learned Magistrate in all the three matters, are not sustainable and needs to be quashed.3. All the criminal cases have been filed by a Co-operative society known by name, Yashwant Backward Class Housing Society, at Bhusawal, through their Secretary, Namdeo Kautik Ghule. One Devidas Baviskar, accused No. 1 in Criminal case No. 19/1985, was working as a Secretary of the said society in between 1978 to 1983. He was entrusted with the work of supervision of construction of the houses to be constructed for the members of the society. The accused No. 2...

Dashrath Gangaram Wasankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR380; 2005(4)MhLj270

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No. 2 Hon'ble Minister dated 2-9-1994, whereby the Hon'ble Minister, has found that the land in dispute deserves to be allotted to the respondent No. 5, and has directed regularization of his encroachment by putting up appropriate proposal in that respect. The petitioner has further claimed a direction to the Government, Commissioner and Collector to hand over the possession of the plot Nos. 211 and 212 to him.2. The facts in brief are that - the petitioner claims that he was allotted plot No. 212, ad measuring 25 x lift, total 275 sq.ft. by Collector on 28-6-1972 for temporary period of three months on lease and it was in petitioners' possession as encroacher. He further mentions that on 26-4-1978 he requested the Collector for allotment of that land and he also applied for 895 sq.ft. of land from adjacent plot No. 211. Th...

Bhavani Cigarettes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After granting the application for early hearing, the stay application is taken up.2. The applicant is a manufacturer of cigarettes falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He sends raw tobacco to a job worker for curing, blending and manufacture of cut tobacco required in the making of cigarettes. On the ground that such cut tobacco when received in the factory is used in the manufacture of cigarettes the applicant claimed exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25/3/1986 as amended. It is an admitted fact that tobacco dust/refuse emanates when the cut tobacco is used in the manufacture of cigarettes.The Department's contention is that since cut tobacco is used in the manufacture of dust/refuse which attracts Nil rate of duty, the provisions of Notification No. 214/86 are violated. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for Rs. 5,25,400/- towards duty and Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty. Hence this application.4. The applicant's main plea is that the C...

Neer Extrusions P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

"In view of the factual and legal position the appellant most respectively prays as follows :- That it is by now a settled principle of Law as reiterated time and again by several judicial authorities including the honorable Tribunal that imposition of any penalty is not justified when the assessee volunteers to pay the entire duty demanded even prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and passing of the Order-in-Original as evidently clearly done in the facts of the present case. The judicial forums have always protected the assessee qua such draconian provisions provided an honest and bonafide attempt is made by such assesse to surrender itself to the duty demands. In view of such clear cut factual and legal position it was unfair and unjustified on the part of the Commissioner (A) to confirm any demand of the penalties much less under Section 11AC and 173Q of the Central Excise Act and Rules. We crave leave to refer to any rely upon several judicial ruling and precedents at t...

Gujarat State Fertilizers and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and stay of operation thereof arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who in the impugned order held that the applicants herein are liable to pay Rs. 89,68,771/- towards duty on clearances effected by them from 1.4.1989 to 30.6.1993.2. The dispute pertains to valuation of excisable goods manufactured by the applicants. The original authority held that deductions from the assessable value, claimed by the assessee before him were admissible and held that an amount of Rs. 4,87,67,971/- being the excess duty paid is refundable to the assessee. He, however, credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund as the assessee passed on the incidence of burden to his customer. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner held that some of the deductions claimed and availed of by the respondent before him are not admissible and this resulted in short levy of Rs....

Pee Vee Textile Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are taken up together, as the issue is common though the appeals are directed against three separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Viscose Blended Yarn, a substantial portion of which is exported. The appellant accumulated CENVAT credit, which for payment of duty. He therefore applied for refund of such accumulated credit. It was denied. Hence, these appeals.2. The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 92,50,000/0 being the accumulated credit for the quarter July 2002 to September 2002 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2002, which reads as follows: 5. Refund of CENVAT credit - where any inputs are used in the final products which are cleared for export under bond ............. The CENVAT Credit in respect of the inputs so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer towards payment of duty of excise and for any reason (Emphasis added) such adjustment is not p...

Shri Rajesh Harilal Gandhi and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A common order in these appeals is being passed after hearing Shri Rajesh Harilal Gandhi appearing in person and Shri M.V. Ravindran for other appellant and the Id. D.R. Shri S.S. Bhagat for the Revenue.2. The issue in these two appeals is the penalty imposed under Rule 209A .3. These two appellants had dealing with M/s. Krishna Plastochem Ltd. (KPL), who are manufacturers of acid and they were buying certain quantity of Oxalic Acid on cash transaction basis from M/s. KPL. The factory premises of M/s. KPL and also the premises of the appellants were searched by the Central Excise authorities and 13 bags totally weighing 650 kgs. of Oxalic Acid were detained, which were subsequently released on 17.04.98 after verification. A Show Cause Notice was issued inter alia to the appellants after completion of enquiry, asking them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them.4. The Commissioner, after considering the submission and the material on record, confirmed the demand of d...