Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Psl Ltd. and Shri V.M. Joshi Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(200)ELT609Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals are being disposed off by a common order, as the issues involved in both the impugned order are identical.2. As per the facts on record, M/s. PSL Ltd., are engaged in the process of coating of M.S. Pipes. The Commissioner by holding that such coating amounts to manufacture resulting in a new commercial commodity, has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 83,40,81,309/-(Rupees eighty three crores forty lakhs eighty one thousand three hundred and nine only) and Rs. 63,35,840/- (Rupees sixty three lakhs thirty five thousand eight hundred forty only) against M/s. PSL Ltd., along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 72,98,74,433/- & Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 11AC and Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 25. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on Shri V.M. Joshi, Asst. Vice President of the Company.3. It is seen that the appellant is one of the factories of PSL group, situated at Visakhapatnam and is engaged in coating of bare pipes supplied by the cus...

Navbharat Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC476

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to refund claims filed by the appellant in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and rejected by the authorities below.2. After hearing both sides, we find that as per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the processing of textile fabrics, mainly cotton fabrics and exporting the same under bond. As a result of export of the final products, Modvat credit availed in respect of the inputs got accumulated in their records and could not be utilized for home clearance for payment of duty. Accumulation of credit was also on the ground that whereas the rate of duty on input was 10%, final product attracted duty only @5%. Accordingly, the refund claims on monthly basis was filed by the appellant in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Notification No 11/02-CE (NT). The said refund claims were rejected by the original adjudicating authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner o...

RajraIn Jwalaprasad and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC72

1. Heard both sides in this bunch of appeals against a common order of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla.2. The appellant M/s Rajnarain Jwalaprasad, was an Advance License holder under the DEEC Scheme. These Advance Licenses were transferred, as per the Exim Policy, to M/s AarVee Plastics who had actually filed the Bill of Entry and cleared the imported goods and sold them thereafter to M/s Kuppi Utpadan. The liability to import duty demanded from M/s Rajnarain Jwalaprasad, an Advance Licence holder cannot be upheld, as made under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. following the decision in the case of Dharam exports v. CC, Nhava Sheva 2005 (192) ELT 503 (Tri-Mumbai), since no goods were imported by them.3. The Advance Licence was transferred, as provided under the Exim Policy, to M/s AarVee. Plastics, same has not been suspended or cancelled and therefore the demand of duty is not justified in view of the decisions:Titan Medical Systems Pvt Ltd v. CC, New Delhi ;Collector of Cust...

J.K. Steel and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC272

1. Heard both sides. In the instant case M/s. J.K. Steel and Alloys Bhavnagar have purchased gas cylinders (Oxygen Gas) for cutting the plates/making ready to material goods for furnace. The assessee treating the same as capital goods availed Modvat credit, which is saught to be denied by the Department. The contention of the Department is that the cylinder falls under Chapter Heading No. 7311.00 which is not defined under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 as capital goods as such the assessee not eligible to avail the Modvat credit. Both the authorities below have given concurrent findings on this issue hence assessee came in appeal.2. The Id. counsel for the appellants relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. the language used in the explanation (1) of Rule 57Q is liberal and explained as what amounts to capital goods. Though this decision is rendered under old rules, it does not give scop...

Radha Textile and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the stay applications are being disposed of by a common order, as they are directed against the same impugned order passed by Commissioner, vide which he has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 4.17 crores (Approximately) against M/s. Usha Fasshions P. Ltd. formerly known as M/s. Indo Green Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and has imposed penalties upon the said appellant as also on the other applicants under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002.2. We have heard Shri Prakash Shah appearing for the appellant and find that the demand has been confirmed against the manufacturer on the basis of the details available in the records seized from transporter M/s. S.P. Thakkar Transport Co. In terms of the records maintained by the said transporter, during the period March 2001 to May 2002 M/s.Usha Fashions Private Ltd. had transported processed fabrics in excess of the quantity reflected in their statutory records. It is seen that the said transporter had maintained record of processed...

Kapoor Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC554

2. The appellants assailed an order dated 24.06.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which confirms the order dated 21.06.1997 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (P), wherein personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) were imposed on the appellants i.e.M/s. Kapoor Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and its director Shri. Ramesh K. Jain, under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and 10 Foreign Mark Gold bars seized from the premises of the appellants were ordered to be confiscated absolutely. On 26.07.1993, on the basis of an information, the officers of enforcement searched the premises of M/s. Kapoor Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and seized 10 foreign marked gold biscuits under the provisions of FERA 1973. Subsequently on 10.11.1993 in the presence of Shri. Ramesh K. Jain, Director of M/s. Kapoor Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. the officers of M & P wing of Customs seized the said 10 foreign gold biscuits valued at Rs. 5,12,09...

Bombay Hospital Trust and anr. Vs. Dr. Shailesh Hathi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR601; 2006(3)BomCR585; [2006(110)FLR473]; 2006(3)MhLj788

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition challenges the Award passed by the IX Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 444 of 2002 dt.19.01.02. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under:2. The petitioner is a Charitable Trust, registered under the Indian Public Trust Act, 1950 and are running a Hospital in the name and style of 'Bombay Hospital'. Sometime in or about 1974 the Respondent No. 1 who is a Physiotherapist joined a doctor known as Rambhai Patel as an Assistant. The said Doctor, Rambhai Patel was attached as a Doctor to the petitioner Hospital.3. The respondent No. 1 thus started working in the Physiotherapy Department of the Hospital and was giving the exercise to the patients manually as well as by Electro Therapeutic Machine.4. On 19.11.90, Dr.Rambhai Patel discontinued the services of the respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said action, the respondent No. 1 raised an Industrial Dispute under section 10 read with section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, ...

Devidayal Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom307; 2006(3)ALLMR470; 2006(5)BomCR287; 2007(2)CTLJ95(Bom); 2006(4)MhLj662

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,56,560.00 with further interest on the Rs. 2,48,910.00 at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and/or realisation. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly stated are as under :2. Sometime in or about March 1973 the defendants through the Directorate of Industries (Central Stores Purchase Organization), Sachivalaya, Bombay, invited tenders for supply of diverse quantities of Endrin 20% E.C. Carbaryl 10% and Carbaryl 50% W.P. under a tender No. Pur/1772/13775/B published in Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 22.3.1973. The plaintiffs by their letter dated 6.4.1973 made an application for supplying the aforesaid material. The quantities which were required to be supplied is 80,000 liters Endrin 20% E.C. at the rate of 21.90 per litre, 150 M.T. Carbaryl 10% Dust for and at the price of Rs. 3,250/- per M. Ton and 25 M. Ton Carbaryl 50% W.P. at the rate of Rs. 16,950/- per ...

Kagaz Packaging a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Indian Partner ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR295

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners, by means of this writ petition, seek to impugn the order dated 19th July, 1996 passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade whereby he maintained the orders of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade Bombay and the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi rejecting the application made by the first petitioner for premium in terms of REP Circular No.11/1993 and the amended REP Circular No. 14/1993. 2. The first petitioner-M/s. Kagaz Packaging made the application for payment of premium in the following facts and circumstances: (i) The first petitioner was issued Advance Intermediate Licence No. 0304768/1/02/10/1/05 dated 25.05.1992 (for short, 'Licence no.1'). (ii) On the same day i.e. 25/05/1992 the petitioner was issued another Advance Intermediate Licence No. 0304769/1/02/10/1/05 (for short, 'licence no. 2'). (iii) Licence no. 1 was issued to the first petitioner consequent upon a tie up arrangement it had with M/s. Food and Inn...

Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs. Bharat Overseas Communicators

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(199)ELT800(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kantharia, the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. It is admitted fact that show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act read with the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 was issued to the respondent proposing penal action for violation of Customs Act and Customs House Agents Licence Regulations. The said notice was admittedly issued in the month of January 2005. At the time of issuance of the show cause notice, the Commissioner of Customs (General) did not think it fit to exercise of power of suspension of Customs House Agents (CHA) licence given to the respondent. After a gap of about 8 months, the Commissioner of Customs (General) passed an order suspending CHA licence given to the respondent. The order of suspension does not record the circumstances which justified immediate suspension of the license pending enquiry, particularly when at the time of issuance of show cause notice for revocation of licence, suspension order was not issu...