Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides at length. There is a demand of Rs. 3,37,17,073/- and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs against the appellants. The appellants have not admittedly fulfilled the export obligation against the advance licences issued to them under which they have imported Low Ash Metallurgical (LAM) Coke duty free. According to the appellants they have exported 4,182 MT of Pig Iron and 2,046 MT of castings as against the export obligation of 20,000 MT of Pig Iron and 20,000 MT of castings. The appellants have paid duty amount of Rs. 1,66,18,563/- subsequent to issue of show cause notice (Rs. 84,74,128/- towards Basic Customs Duty and Rs. 81,44,435/-towards Special Additional Duty and Special Customs Duty). The break-up of demand confirmed against the appellants is as follows : -(i) Basic Customs Duty (BCD) Rs. 1,01,37,819/-(ii) Anti-dumping Duty (ADD) Rs. 1,33,14,373/-(iii) Special Customs Duty (SCD) Rs. 50,68,909/-(iv) Special Additional Duty (SAD) Rs. 51,95,971 /- -------------------- (i) Ra...

Rambhaji Baslkirhsna Buchade Vs. Radhabai Madhavrao Khode,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR157

Anoop V. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, thereby the respondent's suit for eviction on the ground of default, as contemplated under Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act) has been decreed.2. The petitioner is a tenant of one room on ground floor, in Municipal House No. 866, Gora Ram Galli, Nasik, since more than 25 years at the rate of Rs. 14.04 per month inclusive of education cess at the rate of Rs. 1.04. As there was dispute between the respondents-landlords, about the ownership of the suit premises and as the Municipal Council served a demand notice for recovery of taxes upon the petitioner being a occupier, he deposited the part of the amount from 10.6.1976 to 11.8.1982 without any specific intimation to the respondents-landlords, through the Exhs. 23 to 27 and 30, dated 16/7/1979, 7/12/1982. 12/2/1981, ...

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Shri Madhavan S/O Shri Rama ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007ACJ225; [2006(108)FLR397]; 2005(4)MhLj1005

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The First Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation who has granted the respondent-workman compensation amounting to Rs. 3,40,000/-. 2. The facts in this case are not disputed. The Respondent was employed as the Chief Cook on a vessel owned by the Appellant. On 28.1.1992, the respondent complained of rectal bleeding. He was signed off from the vessel the next day and was admitted to a hospital in Vishakhapatnam. The Doctor's certificate dated 14.2.1992 issued to him in Vishakhapatnam certifies that the respondent was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus. On 2.3.1992, the respondent was operated for piles and discharged from the hospital soon thereafter. On 7.4.1992, the respondent was examined and his blood report confirmed the existence of Diabetes Mellitus. He was then certified as permanently unfit for employment on the appellant's ship. 3. In 1994, the respondent by an application claimed compensation on account of an i...

Sujata Sanzgiry Vs. Ankush R. Naik and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom404; 2006(1)ALLMR541; 2006(2)BomCR179; 2006(1)MhLj639

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order (deemed decree) dated 9th October, 1997, passed by the Executive Court on an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC', for short).2. The appeal arises in the facts and circumstances which may be briefly indicated first:i. By an Agreement for Sale dated 5th August, 1989, the first respondent agreed to sell the Flat No. 201, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa, to the appellant for a consideration stated therein.ii. The respondent No. 1 failed to honour the agreement for sale which necessitated the appellant to file a suit for specific performance and delivery of possession against the respondent No. 1 on 13-2-1991.iii. In the suit filed by the appellant, an application was made for temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from inducting any third party.iv. The exparte temporary injunction was granted by the Trial Courts on 13-2-1991 which was later on confirmed on 27-8-1991.v. The d...

Commissioner of Central Excise-i Vs. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(190)ELT11(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard rival parties.2. Perused appeal.3. The substantial questions of law sought to be raised are as under :(1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in interpreting Section 11A of Central Excise Act while holding that Duty demand on 19-4-2004, was not required to be made due to insertion of Section 2B to Section 11A on 11-5-2001 and that invoking the penalty clause of Section 11AC is not called for?(2) Whether Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A is applicable considering the fact that the assessee indulged in clandestine removal. When the Show Cause Notice contains detailed narration of events apparently leading to the conclusion of intention to evade payment of duty, whether mere non-invocation of specific section/provision to Section 11A will vitiate the show cause notice for purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944?4. Factual matrix reveals that the show cause notice was issued on 19-4-2002 whereas entire amount of duty and penalty was paid on 3...

Kiran Machine Tools Vs. D.D. Hinge and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR237; 2006(3)BomCR369; [2006(109)FLR253]; (2006)ILLJ410Bom; 2006(1)MhLj286

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14th May, 1996 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of IInd Labour Court at Pune in Miscellaneous Application (IDA) No. 52 of 1995. The said application was submitted for setting aside the ex parte award dated 12th July, 1995 passed in Reference (IDA) No. 476/94 and it came to be dismissed by the Labour Court.2. The petitioner is a proprietory concern and the respondent was its workman whose services were terminated purportedly on 25th February, 1994. Therefore, he had made a demand for reinstatement in service with backwages and consequential benefits. In spite of the service of notice in the same reference, the petitioner did not cause its appearance before the Labour Court and oppose the reference. The workman therefore filed an affidavit by way of his evidence and adopted the contentions raised in the statement of claim on the basis of which the learned Presiding Officer proceeded to pass the ex parte award di...

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Madhavan Raman Arakhan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC13; 2005(4)ALLMR481

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The first appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation who has granted the respondent-workman compensation amounting to Rs. 3,40,000.2. The facts in this case are not disputed. The respondent was employed as the chief cook on a vessel owned by the appellant. On 28.11.1992, the respondent complained of rectal bleeding. He was signed off from the vessel the next day and was admitted to a hospital in Vishakhapatnam. The doctor's certificate dated 14.2.1992 issued to him in Vishakhapatnam certifies that the respondent was suffering from Diabetes mellitus. On 2.3.1992, the respondent was operated for piles and discharged from the hospital soon thereafter. On 7.4.1992, the respondent was examined and his blood report confirmed the existence of diabetes mellitus. He was then certified as permanently unfit for employment on the appellant's ship.3. In 1994, the respondent by an application claimed compensation on account of an inju...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. (A) Vs. Mahaveer Steel Re-rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri. N.V.B.Nair, Ld. JDR. Nobody is present for the respondents.2. The appellants opted for small scale Notification No. 16/97-C.E.dated 1-4-1997 and in terms of the provisions of Rule 57-A/H of Central Excise Rules 1944, was required to debit an amount of credit availed by them in respects of inputs, lying as such or in the shape of semi-processed items or in the shape of final product. The appellant debited an amount of Rs. 4,48,135/- against the revenue demand of Rs. 7,52,165/-. Accordingly, they were issued Show Cause Notice for demanding balance amount of Rs. 3,04,030/-.3. The respondents contention, which stands accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) is that part of the final product lying in the factory as on 1-4-1997 was manufactured out of non-modvatable inputs. The said stand was not originally accepted by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that t...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (A.C.C.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT238Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who has held that the goods imported by the appellants herein are inverters specifically covered under Customs Tariff Heading 8504.40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and rejected the claim of the appellants for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8543.89.2. We have heard both sides. The goods imported by the appellants were examined and found to be inverters, import of which required a Specific Import Licence. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods on the ground that no Specific Import Licence was produced for clearance of the goods. However, he granted the importers an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/-. The lower appellate authority upheld the adjudication order. Hence this appeal.3. The contention of the appellants that the goods are not inverters per se for conversion from Direct Current to Alternati...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shreenath Prints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents were working under compounded levy scheme. However, they surrendered their licence and registration certificate under their letter dated 14-12-1998. The said letter was accepted by the department on the same day. The factory was leased out to another manufacturer under an agreement dated 16-12-1998. The new manufacturer started their manufacturing activities with effect from 1-1-1999.2. Proceedings initiated against the respondents for the period 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing that the respondents was no longer manufacturer during the said period and had surrendered his licence. I do not find any infirmity in the above view of the appellate authority. Once an assessee stops to be a manufacturer and surrendered his licence, which also stands accepted by the revenue, there is no justification for demanding duty for the subsequent period. As such, I do not find any merits in the revenue's appeal and reject the same....