Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. G.T.C. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The following question has been referred for consideration of the Larger Bench. "whether in view of the fact, that when operation/process conducted result in changes in sub-heading classification, then considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s J.G. Glass Industries, M/s Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. and M/s Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. whether manufacture under Central Excise Act, 1946 would take place to cause and call for levy of duty once again on embossed cut to shape and size aluminium foil in cigarette industry." The said question has been referred to Larger Bench because this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. Mumbaij v. Godfrey Philips Ltd. reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 1026 (T) has held that such activity does not amount to manufacture merely because of meeting of change tariff entry.The view taken by the referring Bench is contrary to the view taken in Godfrey Philips Ltd. 3. Shri K.K. Srivastava, learned J.D.R. appearing for the Revenue inter alia submitted that ...

Applitech Solution Ltd. and anr. Vs. Citi Bank N.A. and anr.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)BC175

1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the In-charge, learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad on Exhibit No. A/17 in Original Application No. 258 of 2003.By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the applicant Bank to discharge respondent No.2/original defendant No. 3 Jayesh Parekh from his personal guarantee.2. I have heard Mr. K.I. Shah for the appellants, Mr. Jagose for the respondent No. 1 Bank and Mr. D'souza for the respondent No. 2. I have also gone through the proceedings including the discharge application made by the applicant Bank in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, reply filed by the appellants, the impugned order, so also the guarantee letter dated 6.12.2000 and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.3. Original Application being O.A. No. 258...

Rayon Workers' Union and Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh Vs. Century Rayon an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR232; (2005)IIILLJ618Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petition impugns the award parts I and II of the 4th Labour Court at Thane in Reference (IDA) No. 11 of 1991. By award Part I, the Labour Court was of the view that the enquiry held against Petitioner No. 2 (for short, 'the workman') was fair and proper and that the findings drawn by the Enquiry Officer had not been seriously objected to. In these circumstances, it was held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. By award Part II, the Labour court allowed the reference partly by directing the respondent-company to pay 30 months wages to the workman on the basis of last drawn wages alongwith his other legal dues. 2. The facts arising from this petition are as follows:There was an altercation in the factory premises of Respondent No. 1 between one of the workers, Jagat Singh and an outsider. Several workers rushed to Jagat Singh's aid when they found him being assaulted. The workers, agitated by the fact that an outsider was interfering with t...

The Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board, Vs. Shri Mohan E. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR873; [2006(110)FLR265]

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Complaint (ULP) No. 169 of 1992 was filed before the Labour Court at Pune by the present respondent and one Mr. Dattatraya Raghunath Gosavi. However, during the pendency of the said complaint, Mr. Gosavi died, he withdrew from the complaint and therefore, the complaint was prosecuted only by the present respondent and it came to be allowed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Pune vide his judgment and order dated 1.11.1995. The alleged, termination letter dated 2.3.1992 was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in his original post and capacity with continuity of service and full backwages. The said decision was challenged in Revision Application (ULP) No. 164 of 1995 and the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Pune vide his judgment and order dated 14.8.1996 was pleased to dismiss the said Revision. The petitioner employer has, therefore, approached this Court and impugned the orders passed by both the Courts below.2. While granting rule, t...

Sadashiv Morajkar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government of Goa and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR249; 2005(2)CTLJ168(Bom)

Lavande A.P., J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent heard forthwith.2. Heard Mr. S.G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Shivan Dessai, for the petitioner, Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Advocate General with Mr. J.A. Lobo, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Bhise, learned Advocate for respondent No. 4.3. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the decision of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to open the tender submitted by the petitioner as well as the decision to award the tender to the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 invited tenders on behalf of the Governor of Goa, for the work of improvement and hot mixing of road from Monte de Guirim High School to St. Anthony's Chapel at Ferrao Waddo via Guirim Cross in a length of 1300 kms in Saligao Constituency. The estimated cost of the tender was Rs. 22,31,036 with an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 55,776/-. The tender had to be submitted in a seale...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Kabul Textiles (Llc)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR325

Britto N.A., J.1. In these appeals filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, (Act, for short), against a common order dated 13-8-2004, of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT), the revenue seeks to raise two questions as substantial questions of law and they are as follows :-(a) Whether the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992?(b) Whether the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for rnisdeclaration?2. In order to dispose off these appeals, a few facts are required to be taken note of.3. On the basis of the information received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) that M/s. Ayesha Exports and some other Delhi based importers had imported fabrics through containers at Marmagoa Port, by resorting to misdeclaration and under valuation, the Import General Manifests of seven...

Shilpa Shares and Securities Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No. A/36/C-IV/WZB/2005, dated 27-12-2004 the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the applicants firm against the imposition of penalty under the provision of Section 76 and Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 for delay in deposit of Service Tax and late filing of ST-3 Returns. From the order, it is noted that in spite of notices being sent to the appellants, nobody represents them. The Applicants now seek setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that on the date fixed for hearing, the partner reached the Tribunal by 12 noon and then he found that the above appeal had been already called and rejected ex-parte. The applicants submit that they will be badly affected, if the ex parte order is not recalled and they are not given an opportunity to be heard on this appeal.2. Even today, when the application is taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the applicant firm. Further, I have not found any reason to recall the ex parte order, as the issue stands settled by virtu...

Psl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application has been filed under the provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the prayer to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2,20,78,225.50 and penalty of identical amount.2. Shri. V. Sridharan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they are engaged in the activity of bending of pipes received from their customers, on job work basis. Process undertaken by them for bending of Iron & Steel pipes are as under:- "*The pre-inspected steel pipes having positive thickness is kept on the pipe carriage and clamped hydraulically on the rear carriage and clamped in the front. * The radius of bend is fixed at defined radius by adjusting the radius by adjusting the radius area and front clamp. The pipe is marked for bend length and initial thickness/hardness measurement. * The pipe is then heated so that the process of bending pipes shall be started slowly by pushing forward and carried out at a controlled speed. Th...

Tips Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT300Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed a demand for Rs. 17,00,161/- and an equal amount of penalty imposed on the applicant.2. The dispute is in regard to modvat credit availed of by the applicant on the duty paid magnetic tapes which have been used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as non-dutiable final products. The period of dispute is 1.6.1998 to 15.7.1998. With effect from 1.6.1998, recorded cassette tapes have been exempted from payment of central excise duty. The department's contention is that the magnetic tapes on which credit has been availed have been used in the exempted final product, i.e. recorded audio cassettes, and therefore under Rule 57CC 8% of the price of the exempted product is liable to be paid when the exempted product is cleared out of the factory. Larger period of limitation is invoked inasmuch as it is alleged that the applicants have suppressed the...

Apte Amalgamations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides in as much as the issue lies in narrow compass. The dispute involved is as regards correct classification of Sulfamathoxazole (SMX) manufactured by the appellant on job work basis during the period November 99 to March 2000. The goods were being manufactured by the appellant out of the raw material sent by M/s. Galaxo India Ltd. which were the principal manufacture and were being directly dispatched by the Glaxo's customers. The duty was being deposited by the appellant on the price charged by Glaxo India from their ultimate customer.2. The revenue entertained the view that the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit of the appellant, if taken into consideration, would result in higher assessable value of the profit. This requires the appellant to pay higher duty. On these allegations, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant by...