Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Zakaria Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT942Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessees herein were engaged in the manufacture of Steel Angles and Bars falling under Tl 25 of the schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff upto 28/02/86 and falling under Chapter heading 72.09 and 72.10 of the schedule to CETA, 1985 past 01/03/86. They were manufacturing the aforesaid items out of rerollable scrap obtained from ship breaking as well as other rerollable scrap and MS Ingots classifiable under Chapter Heading 72.15, 72.03 and 72.06. For the period prior to 01/03/86, the inputs received by them fell for classification under Tariff Item 25. The assessees were clearing their final products without obtaining Central Excise licence and without payment of duty. On 23/09/1986 the factory premises of the assessees were visited by the Central Excise Officers and a case of evasion of duty in respect of steel angles and bars manufactured and cleared during the period 01/08/83 to 31/08/86 was booked against them and show cause notice dated 15/07/88 raising duty dema...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mohit World

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After rejecting the stay petition of the revenue, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The Commissioner of Customs vide his order has set aside the order of the lower authorities and has permitted re-assessment of the goods.While doing so he has observed as under: "It was the contention of the appellant that no proper market enquiry was conducted by the department. Along with the parawise commends, department sent a report where enquiries made form the different markets, viz., Vileparle, Powai, Andheri, etc. for different items was shown in a table. I find appellant contention was to correct that enquiries were not properly conducted. The name of the shop and name of the person from whom such enquiries were made was not mentioned, nor any evidence of such enquiry such as signature of the person and sale bills etc. were placed on record. Without name of the person, shops, name of the product, model No. etc. market enquiry cannot be accepted. In case the appellant wants to cr...

Halcyon Lab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After allowing the application for early hearing of the appeal, we take up the appeal itself for disposal, inasmuch as the issue is covered by the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. The short issue involved is as to whether the price at which at appellant was selling the goods to their customers under section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Acts, is required to be adopted as the assessable value or the maximum selling price fixed by the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 i.e. DPCO. The original adjudicating authority accepted the appellant's contention that the selling price is the normal assessable value under section 4 and accordingly dropped the proceedings. However, on an appeal against the above order of the original adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the revenue's stand.Ipca Laboratories v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 2004 (63) RLT 358 (CESTATE-LB), has held that th...

Angadpal Inds Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The claim of the appellants herein for abatement of duty during the period when the stenters were under Central Excise seal (period of closure exceeds 7 days but does not exceed one month) has been rejected only on the ground that as per Rule 96ZQ(e) abatement can be allowed only if the duty has been first paid and since the appellants herein did not first pay and then claim the abatement, they were not entitled to abatement.2. After hearing both sides and noting the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Karmyogi Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (136) ELT 639 which has relied upon the Board Circular No. 485/51/99 dated 15.9.1999 to hold that abatement cannot be denied only on the ground that the duty was not paid in advance, we set aside the present impugned order and allow the appeal, as the issue is fully covered by the decision cited supra....

Economic Explosives Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT265Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, we find that the duty of Rs. 48,355/- has been confirmed against the appellants, who are the manufacturer of explosives, on the ground that the freight expenses incurred by them for supply of explosives to M/s. Coal India Ltd., are required to be included in the assessable value. In addition, personal penalty of identical amount has been imposed.2. It is seen that the entire amount of freight has been included in the assessable value. The Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Sigma Transformers & Electrical Pvt. Ltd., has held that the freight charges, where the title of the goods was transferred at the factory gate is not required to be added in the assessable value, in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Baroda Electricals, even where the amount of transportation charges be collected from the Customers is more than the actual freight expenses incurred, the differential amount cannot be added...

Shree Extrusions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT113Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the authorities below vide which duty of Rs. 5,87,312./- was confirmed against M/s. Shree Extrusions Ltd., along with confirmation of interest and imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed on Shri D.R. Lahori, Managing Director of the said firm.2. The appellants M/s. Shree Extrusions Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of brass rods, wire, profile etc., falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Act. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 27-3-99 when 17,943 Kgs of billets were seized by the Central Excise Officers and were handed over to the appellants under Supratnama. The present proceedings does not relate to the said seizure. However, subsequently the appellant's factory was again visited on 4-7-2000 and various checks were conducted. On physical verification, stock ...

Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj368

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners seek to quash the FIR No. 640 of 2004 dated 25th November, 2004 registered at Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai, on the ground that the same does not disclose any offence having been committed by the petitioners under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'.3. It is the case of the petitioners that one Ankush Ramchandra Jadhav was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 12th June, 1989 in Arvind Gandbhir High School run by Jogeshwari Education Society wherein the petitioner No. 1 is the Head Mistress since 1999, and prior to that, she was Assistant Head Mistress since 1997. The petitioner No. 2 is a Tax Consultant since the year 1992 and is working as Hon. Secretary of the said High School. The services of Ankush Jadhav were terminated in a disciplinary proceedings against him. However, pursuant to the order o...

Bharti Cellular Ltd. Vs. Village Panchayat of Navelim and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR177

Lavande A.P., J.1. Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Coutinho, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 7. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 though served are absent. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent, heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 30-11-2004, passed by Additional Director of Panchayats, Panaji, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 178 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act', for short), challenging the orders dated 25-5-2004 and 20-7-2004, issued by respondent No. 1 Village Panchayat of Navelim, Salcete, directing the petitioner to dismantle cellular based station erected in the village at Buticas Navelim, Salcete. By the impugned judgment and order, the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.3. According to Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearin...

Parents' Association of Medical Students Vs. Pravesh Niyantran Samiti ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj75

ORDERH.L Gokhale, J.1. The petitioner herein is a Society of Parents of Medical Students registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondent No. 1 to the petition is Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (Admission Regulatory Committee) constituted by respondent No. 3 - State of Maharashtra under the direction of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, : AIR2003SC3724 . The respondent No. 2 is the Director of Medical Education and Research (DMER) of State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 4 is the Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Maharashtra. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 are four Private Medical and Dental Colleges who are joined to represent such colleges in the State in pursuance to leave under Order I Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. Affidavit to prove service is filed by the Secretary of the petitioner enclosing the public notices printed in Marathi and English newspapers of Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune and Aurangabad ...

Jeevanlal Ranchhoddas Tank Vs. Killick Nixon Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR295; 2005(6)BomCR323; [2006]70SCL362(Bom)

Deshpande D.G., J.1. The matter was heard by me on the last occasion when the Counsel for the respondent pointed out that this company has gone under the BIFR and this suit or appeal is not maintainable. Today, after going through the concerned letter dated 17th May, 2004, which was given to me by the Counsel for the respondent, the Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the present suit is for a declaration in respect of a document and Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act does not apply. There is substance in what is contended by the Counsel for the appellant. If the proceedings are for winding up the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company ... shall lie. The present suit does not come under any of the aforesaid categor...