Mumbai Court May 2006 Judgments

J.A. Patil (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR451; 2006(4)BomCR661; [2006(111)FLR47]; 2006(5)MhLj614

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30th June 1980 on which date he was holding the post of Director of Seeds Certification in the State of Maharashtra. The post was a Class I post with a pay scale of Rs. 1100-1700 at the time when the petitioner superannuated. After the reports of the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions, the pay scale of the Petitioner, for the purposes of computing pensionary benefits was converted into the following equivalent pay scales namely:As on 1.1.1986 Rs. 3200-4625As on 1.1.1996 Rs. 10,650-15,850On that basis, the pension of the petitioner was revised and he was paid arrears. The relief sought by the petitioner was that, he was entitled to a revision/refutation of his pension in the scale of pay of Rs. 14,300-18,300 with effect from 1st January, 1996 and that his pension was required to be fixed at Rs. 7,150/per month being 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay. In order to support this submission, the petitioner rel...

H.P. Choksey Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(207)ELT25(Bom)

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for respondents - Union of India at length.2. This application has been filed under Sections 438 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the course of the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that he does not press the application under Section 482 and he would like to restrict his submissions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. In the present case, the applicant has an apprehension that he is likely to be arrested in connection with the disclosure which he has made before the Settlement Commission in an application which is filed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-A which has been incorporated and added to the Customs Act, 1962 and by virtue of the disclosure made therein some coercive action may be taken against him by Custom Authorities. It is submitted that till such time his application is not either admitted or rejected...

Gtc Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the classification of goods described as "Cork Tipping Base Paper" imported by the appellant herein under bills of entry dated 18.10.1997 and 4.3.1998 - whether under CTH 4805.29 as claimed by the importers under Chapter Heading 48.13 as held by the authorities below. Heading 48.05 covers "Other uncoated paper and paperboard, in rolls or sheets" while Heading 48.13 covers "Cigarette paper, whether or not cut to size or in the form of booklets or tubes".4. The paper imported is subject to what is called "Motley Process" which is carried out on machines with gravure process and the ink used for coating is a mixture of resin, pigment and solvents. Cork Tipping Paper is used in the manufacture of cigarettes and is a coated paper which is made from uncoated base paper and the basic reason for using coated cork tipping paper is to increase the resistance for the tip from wetting during smoking. As per the explanation of the appellants, "in th...

Fenil Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of clutch plates. The total value of the clearance during the year 1995-96 was Rs. 14,62,323.90/-. However, on visit of the Central Excise officers in the factory it was found that they have cleared finished goods amounting to 18,00,865.20 on the basis of delivery challan which were meant for certain raw-material on job work without raising any invoice and payment of duty. The appellants also admitted destruction of challan during various months, the total value of which aggregated to Rs. 9 lacss. They were therefore issued a show cause notice seeking to demand duty and impose penalty. The duty amounting to Rs. 58,159.49/- was demanded and penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed which was confirmed in appeal.2. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that demand of duty was based solely on the statement of the partner who has subsequently retracted the statement within 2-3 days by filing an affidavit and that there is no ot...

Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appeal is against the lower authority's order rejecting request of the appellants to convert the impugned Shipping Bills for Duty Drawback to Shipping Bills for DEEC. The adjudicating Commissioner has rejected the request of the appellants on the ground that they have not fulfilled the condition laid down in the Circular No. 4/2004-Cus dated 16.1.2004.2. Shri C.M. Sharma, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have exported the impugned pumps and motors with spare parts under a specific contract with the Govt. of Iraq for which a Letter of Credit was opened by the Govt. of Iraq. The appellants exported the pumps against claim for duty drawback and under the same Shipping Bills, the motors were also exported without claiming either Drawback or DEEC benefit due to a mistake on the part of the Clearing Agent. He further states that the appellants had obtained advance licences for export of motors and that therefore their intent...

Sanghvi Movers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Classification of goods described by the importers (the appellants herein) as "used hydraulic truck mounted mobile cranes" is the issue for determination in this appeal - whether under Customs Tariff Heading 8705.10 as held by the authorities below or 8426.19 as claimed by the importers.3. It is the case of the department that the goods imported are nothing but special purpose motor vehicles falling for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 87.05. The authorities below have relied upon HSN Notes to Heading 87.05 which inter alia covers "Crane lorries, not for the transport of goods, consisting of a motor vehicle chassis on which a cab and rotating crane are permanently mounted." It is the contention of the appellants who are represented by their counsel, that the goods are self-propelled machines in which propelling and control elements of a complete motor vehicle chassis are located in the cab of the working machine mounted on a wheeled or automobile chassis and, therefore, ...

Ghodawat Foods International Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pro-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,20,752/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty thousand seven hundred fifty-two only) and penalty of equal amount, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, who has upheld the demand and penalty confirmed against the applicants herein by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the activity of repacking RBD palmoline oil in bulk (received by the appellants in tankers) into retail packs and labelled with Star brand, amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Note 4 to Chapter 15 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. On hearing both sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) hasprima facie rightly distinguished the Tribunal's order in Ammonia Supply Co. v. CCE, New Delhi relied upon by the applicant herein to support their stand that the activity carried out by them does not amount to manufacture, for the reason that in the Ammonia Supply Co.'s case cited supra, the Tribuna...

Arebeen Star Maritime Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case have filed an amendment to the IGM stating that instead of 90 drums mentioned the correct quantity was 585 drums and the gross weight was 61770 Kg. instead of 42522 Kgs. declared by them. The value of consignment however remained unchanged. The request for amendment was to be considered as per the provision of Sectimn 30(1) od the Austoms Act, 1960 but instead of considering their request the matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who held that the excess quantity was unloaded without permission and therefore held that goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and (g) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) along with a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand Only).2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that in this case an amendment to IGM could have been refused only on the ground that there was a fraudulent intention to evade duty and there were substantial r...