Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Welspun Gujarat State Rohran Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are being disposed by this common order since the issue involved, is interlinked.1.2 The appellant assessee have a manufacturing plant at Village Vadadala, District of Bharuch, Gujarat, where they manufacture MS pipes, they also supply Cement/Epoxy coated, as well as non-coated MS Pipes to various Government, and Non-Government bodies. In some cases, the pipes are supplied for delivery at the factory gate at a price inclusive of duties, freight, taxes etc. and in a number of other cases; pipes are supplied, for delivery at the customer's work sites, at a price which is inclusive of all the taxes, duties, freight, insurance and other expenses incurred up to the delivery of the goods at the customer's work site.1.3 Such the value of these goods was to be determined in terms of provision of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Prices of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and since that in cases where the coated or un-coated pipes at FOR price were inclu...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hyundai Unitech Electrical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue in the present appeal is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur, by which penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed by the Asst. Commissioner on the Respondents, has been reduced to Rs. 50,000/-.2. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Tower and Lattice Masts of Iron & Steel falling under Chapter 73 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985.3. The Respondents were availing the facility of payment of duty of excise on fortnightly basis in terms of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Accordingly, in respect of clearance for the first fortnight, the duty was required to be paid by 20th of the month and for the clearances in the second fortnight, other than the month of March, the duty was required to be paid by the 5th of succeeding month.4. For the period 16.12.2002 to 31.12.2002, the Respondents were facing acute shortage of funds. Out of total duty liability of Rs. 5...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jigar Fundry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).Revenue has filed the present appeal. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri N V B Nair Ld. DR and Shri Hardik Modh Ld.Advocate. I find that the respondent unit was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 2.5.1997. On verification of the records and physical stock taking, it was observed that the statutory record for modvat credit were maintained upto 14.2.1997 and no entries were made thereafter for receipt and issue of the inputs for the period 15.12.1997 to 1.5.1997. A shortage of 221.388 MT of pig iron totally valued at Rs. 13.61 lakhs approximately and involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,04,230/- was detected. The said shortage was admitted by the proprietor of the firm.2. On the above basis proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confirmation of duty on the said shortages and for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice issued to the respondent for the said purpose culminated into...

Piccaso Home Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC562

1.1 On goods and primary packaging the appellants affix exclusively their own brand names, however on the outer cartons they also place a term "As seen on TSN/VTS" Revenue wants to deny the SSI benefit availed under Notification 18/98, on the grounds that the term "As seen on TSN/VTS" is the brand name of another person.1.2 Earlier the matter was remanded back to examine the facts and decide the issue in term of this Tribunal decision in the case CCE Mumbai II v. Aarem Enterprises, , wherein in exemption was allowed where a sticker of marketing firm bearing its logo and boldly states "checked" was allowed benefit of SSI exempted (sic, exemption) in a Notification 8/91 as sticker indicated goods to have met to certain quality standard and will not constitute use of Trade mark of another person.1.3. The remand order of the Tribunal specifically mentioned the determined of the exact location of the impugned term i.e. the goods and the manner of packing i.e. on inner or outer packing only...

Dipen Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT65Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide Final Order No. C-II/3247-48/2003/WZB/dt. 9-12-2003 in Appeal Nos. C/534 & 535/96-Bom., the Tribunal upheld confiscation of 'Video Magnetic Tapes in Hubs' under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 for overvaluation of the export goods in the Shipping Bill, with option to redeem the same, reduced the personal penalty imposed under Section 114 upon the exporter to Rs. 50,000/- and set aside penalty imposed upon the partner of the exporting firm.2. By the present application the exporter seeks rectification of mistake purported to be apparent from the record in non-consideration of miscellaneous application filed on 12-11-2003 in which the exporters relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai v. Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd., and sought to distinguish the Apex Court judgment in Om Prakash Bhatia v.Commissioner of Customs, 3. We have heard both sides. Hearing of the above appeals was concluded on 7-7-2003. After an appeal is heard, nothing ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Texchem Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT164Tri(Mum.)bai

1. learned DR appeared for the applicant Commissioner. None appeared for the respondents. This Bench had passed an order on 14-10-2003 holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power of remand. The present applications have been filed seeking re-call and modification of the said order and the ground taken by the applicant Commissioner is as follows : "It is learnt (that this contentious issue whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority post amendment to Section 35A is being referred by the Hon'ble President -CESTAT to a Five Member Bench. As such, the order of CESTAT (Three Member Bench) passed in case of Oripol Industries Ltd., Order No. 107/2003-NB(A), dated 12-5-2003 has not been attained finality." 2. It is my considered view that the ground taken by the applicant-Commissioner is utterly frivolous even after ignoring the grammatical mistakes contained in it. Moreover, I find that the Applicant Commissioner had also f...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. New Jack Printing Works (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai dropping the show cause notice raised against the respondents, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Vimlesh Kumar ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri M.H. Patil, ld. Advocate for the respondent.2. Demand raised in respect of Printed Paper Sheet for the period 1-4-1991 to 31-...-94 by way of issuance of show cause notice on 14-10-1996 on the alleged ground that the said goods were properly classifiable under heading 4811.90 instead of heading 4820.00 has been dropped by the adjudicating authority on the point of limitation by observing that during the relevant period all classification lists filed by the respondents stood duly approved by the proper officer under heading 4820.00. Accordingly by observing as under; he has dropped the demand - "It is not disputed that assessee filed these classification list and the same were approved by the Assistant Commr. C. Ex. Departmental p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Essem Plastic Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is correct classification of plastic handles manufactured by the respondents on job work basis and to be used by their customers in the manufacture of tooth brushes. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner classifying the same under sub-heading 39.26 as articles of plastics by accepting the assessee's claim of classification under Chapter Heading 96.03 as essential part of brush.2. We have heard Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Id. JDR appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned orders. Nobody represented the respondents.3. Assistant Commissioner has observed that Heading 96.03 covers brooms, brushes (including brushes constituting parts of machines appliances or vehicles). As such, it is only complete tooth brushes which are covered under Heading 96.03. Inasmuch as the assessee is not manufacturing complete tooth brushes but only plastic handles on which brushes are mounted, the ...

Lachhiram Chudiwala Vs. Shri Begaram Saini and Shri V.P. Patil, Presid ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR767]

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition filed by the employer assails the final award passed by the First Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No.1159 of 1988 on 8-12-1995.2. The facts leading to this petition could be shortly described as under.The respondent-employee was employed as a driver by the petitioner from July 1986 on a monthly salary of Rs.800/-and he was one of the 3 to 5 drivers. He was staying at the employer's house. Thus, in addition to his salary, he was also getting a facility of lodging and boarding. As per the employee he objected the employer on 29-8-1987 and requested him for regular duty hours, over time wages and duty card etc. mentioning the hours of work, weekly holidays and over time wages, if any. The employer purportedly got annoyed and he was not allowed to report for duty from that day onwards. He immediately approached the Bombay Gumasta Union which, in turn, put up his cause with the employer. He raised a demand for reinstatement on or about 25-11-1987...

Shri Ramesh Ramgopal Daga Vs. Shri Vasant Baburao Khandare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR844; 2006(1)BomCR844; (2005)107BOMLR57; 2005(4)MhLJ292

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the reversal order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nashik, (appellate Court), whereby the respondent-landlord's appeal has been allowed and the order of dismissal of the suit was set aside, resultantly, the respondent-landlord's suit has been decreed, basically on the ground of default. Therefore, the present writ petition.2. The tenant and landlord's relationship was the basic cause of action for filing the suit for eviction, after issuing demand notice, as contemplated under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act). There is no dispute in the present case, that the demand notice was issued and received by the petitioner-tenant. There was no dispute raised immediately within 38 days and or no application of any kind was filed within the said period. That resulted into filing of suit before the learned Civil...