Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. Unity Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Intelligence was gathered by the Officer of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Commissionerate that M/s. Unity Steels Limited (hereinafter referred to as USL), a Baroda based company which had two manufacturing units, one at Halol at Panchmahal District and another at Bhavnagar both in Gujarat, which were closed for more than two years, had been importing chemicals such as Ferro Chrome, Ferro Silicon and Calcium Silicide duty free under Value Based Advance Licence (VABAL), and indulging in malpractice by selling the imported materials in the domestic market instead of utilising them in the manufacture of export goods as required under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. in respect of VABALs. USL had applied for VABALs in February 93 and June 93 after the production had ceased at Halol plant. Stainless Steel Hot Rolled coils imported by USL and lying in the Customs Bonded Warehouse at CWC, Vashi were seized.2. The statement of Shri A.S. Bhattar, Managing Director of USL was recorded. In his statem...
Proctor and Gamble and Shri Ashish Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
1.1 M/s Procter & Gamble (I) Ltd. (presently known as Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Limited) (hereinafter referred to as PGIL) are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Ariel Microsystems detergent powder falling under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the appellants along with their Manager. Thse appeals are being disposed by this common order.1.2 On 19.11.93 PGIL divested the business of Ariel detergent powder in favour of M/s. Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the PGHP). The transfer of PGIL detergent business to PGHP was made known to public by news reports in leading newspapers such as Financial Express, Economic Times, Times of India and Indian Express published on 22.9.1993. They informed the Central Excise authority about the divestiture of its business vide a letter dated 5.1.94.1.3 A price list, consequent to the change in marketing of detergent powder of Ariel brand. In this price list it was specifical...
Sainath Clearing Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT426Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a CHA working as such in Mumbai Customs House. His licence to operate as CHA was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs (General), under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 for various acts of omission and commission narrated in the impugned order. The Commissioner while suspending the licence holds that the appellant allowed the work done by two persons who were not CHA's employees but are freelancers paying commission to the CHA for the use of the licence. It appears that this contention of the Commissioner is not born out by evidence. The two persons who were acting on behalf of the CHA were the employees of the appellant. They were not being paid a regular monthly salary. All the same they were holding a Customs House pass on behalf of the CHA and therefore should be considered as the CHA's employees. Further acts of commission and omission narrated by the Commissioner are not strictly related to the clearance of goods handled by the appellant. We, therefore, observ...
R.S.R. Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT416Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were determining the valuation of the fabrics processed as per the decision in Ujagar Prints' case by the Supreme Court. They availed deemed credit benefit under Notification 29/96-C.E.(N.T.), dated 3-9-96 to the extent of 40% of the duty payable on cotton fabrics and 50% on MMF. In effect, the total duty discharged on the fabrics comprised of 40% or 50% from deemed credit account and 60% or 50%, as the case may be, from PLA. Department is of the view that the discharge of duty from deemed credit account was an additional consideration which was liable to be added to arrive at assessable value of the processed fabrics. Accordingly, notice was issued & duty demands confirmed along with penalty and penalty under Rule 209A on the Director. Hence these appeals.2.1 Duty discharge from Deemed Credit account or PLA, is discharge of duty. Duty on the processed fabric, as discharged, was at effective rate of 16% ad valorem and the entire quantum of this discharge was dedu...
Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT342Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides and on finding that the issue involved is valuation of the excisable goods cleared as per approved tenders of the appellant as called for by M/s. Telco, these holdings and inter connected understanding as found by the adjudicator in a case where by the notice issued, assessments made for the entire period of June 2000 to September 2003 were sought to be re opened by resorting to proviso to Rule 9 read with Costing Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.2. It is found that the appellants have produced charts to exhibit that the clearances have been effected at values much higher than the Rule 9 read with Rule 8 formula envisaged as well as less than those values also in certain cases and the Commissioner has not considered this plea, on facts or in law, to arrive at benefits on part of the assessee & not to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(l). No reasons exist to do so, if that be a fact, we would consider no deliberate attempt to evade tax and thus bar of limit...
Chandan Tubes and Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT48Tri(Mum.)bai
1.1 M/s Chandan Tubes & Metals Pvt Ltd, an assessee & Appellant herein have filed an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 17/MP/Vapi/2004 Dated 24.9.2004 dated 24.9.2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vapi having confirmed Central Excise duty, confiscation of seized goods i.e. M.S Ingots, S S Ingots, S S Runners & Risers and with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine and also order of confiscation under Rule 173(2) with an option to redeem the same. The other appellants are Directors who have been imposed penalties under rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.1.2 Appellants are manufacturers of S S Flats, S S Ingots, M S Ingots and are not equipped to manufacture S S Flats, the S S Flats are got manufactured on job work basis from one M/s Supan Steels Pvt Ltd by following the procedure under Rule 57F (2). Appellants factory was searched by the Central Excise Officers on 28.12.88 and various documents were seized. Investigation were made ...
Azizullahkhan Vs. Member (P), Postal Services Board
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ186CAT
1. The present O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.10.1996 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by six stages from Rs. 1330/- to Rs. 1150/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 975-1660 for a period of five years and the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments and the order dated 31.3.1997 reducing the penalty by two stages from Rs. 1330/- to Rs. 1270/- in the time scale of Rs. 975-1660 for a period of two years passed by Appellate Authority and the order dated 20.9.2001 reducing the penalty of withholding of next increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect by Re visional Authority.2. The applicant's case is that he was working as Postal Assistant in Sakkarsath Post Office, Amravati under the administrative control of respondent No. 3. In May 1991 Maheshwari Kanya Vidyalaya, Amravati handed over covers containing result of the students to the peon of the school to send the same by p...
Harish Chhabra Vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR3; 2005(5)BomCR153; 2005(3)MhLj962
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition has been filed interalia seeking relief that the design registered by the respondent No. 1 being design No. 163381 dated 5.7.1991 in class-1 be cancelled and the second respondent should be directed to expunged and or remove the entry of the said registration from the register of designs. Some of the material facts are as under:2. The petitioner before this court is claiming to be carrying on business in manufacturing ceiling fans of various designs in the name and style of Siri Ram and Sons. The petitioner is claiming that he was carrying on the aforesaid business for many years and he is also claiming to be the registered sole proprietor of various designs of electrical fans including the design inrespect of the dome (the central motor body) of ceiling fan together with canopy registered under No. 167584 in class 1. The respondent No. 1 is also a manufacturer of ceiling fans and the claiming to be an inventor of a design of a part of the ceiling...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Fpu Tahara and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR5; 2005(4)BomCR525
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present Notice of Motion has been taken out for a direction to determine the admissibility of all the documents which are sought to be produced by the plaintiffs through their witness Mr. S.K. Agarwal before the Commissioner. Some of the relevant facts of the present case are as under: 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 8,39,14,843/-plus US $ 45,26,707.88 plus US $ 12,340 with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. The said suit was referred to the Commissioner for recording evidence by an order dt.23.10.2002 passed by this Court and Ms. Madhavi Diwan practising Advocate of this court was appointed Commissioner with further direction that parties to file affidavit of evidence within a period of 2 weeks. The said order dt.23.10.2002 specifically provides as under:- 3. 'The Commissioner shall comply with all the other provisions of the applicable rules contained in Order 18 and in particular, shall record any objection which is raised before him. Th...
Kakkarlal Vishwanathan Vs. Indian Silk Mfg. Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR514; 2006(1)BomCR826; 2005(4)MhLj238
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed for the recovery of sum of Rs. 66,462.01/- with further interest on the principal amount of Rs. 52,747.63/-at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till payment and or realisation. The factual background of the present case are as under:2. The plaintiff was the supplier of hand woven cotton fabrics. It is the case of the plaintiffs that as per the orders placed by the defendants for supply of the said material in accordance with the specification and samples approved by the defendants, the defendants affected supply of the said goods being hand woven cotton fabrics. It is his case that the said supplies had been affected by the plaintiff from time to time since December, 1997 and there has been various payments from the defendant to the plaintiff inrespect of the said goods sold and delivered from time to time. It is the case of the plaintiff that there has been current mutual running account by and between the plaintiffs and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »