Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Vijayalami Kittur Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)14STT346

2. The point for consideration in these stay applications is that whether the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik is justified in enhancing the penalty on the applicants under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik vide impugned orders has revised/ enhanced the penalties of Rs. 34,431/- (Rs. 3,000/- has already been paid), Rs. 6,430/-and Rs. 1,61,703/- (Rs. 2,500/- has already been paid) and Rs. 53,091/-and Rs. 1,07,802/. Whereas the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax), Central Excise & Customs, Nashik imposed penalties under Section 76 and Section 77 and 75A on these 3 appellants. It appears that the asesssee had paid service tax including interest prior to issue of notice. The penalty was ordered after adjudicating the show cause notice by the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax) in the year 2004. In the year 2006, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik which i...

Choksi Silk Mills and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. It is the department's case that the appellants have cleared 18,09,817.50 L.Mtrs of processed fabrics valued at Rs. 3,60,51,227.55 without payment of duty during the period 1.1.89 to 15.9.1989.According to the department, the appellants have altered 305 entries in the lot register and deleted/erased the last digit of the figures mentioned in columns 9, 10, 12 & 13 and therefore, the duty demand has been made by adding 'zero' in the figures in column 9, 10, & 13. The Adjudicating Commissioner's findings, interalia, are as follows: The Senior Scientific Assistant Chemical Examiner to Govt. of Gujarat of Regional Forensic Scientific Laboratory Surat, in his report dated 3.12.1990 has admitted/confirmed that, the appellants had tampered 305 lot entries in the statutory lot register No. 8, 9, 10 & 11 by way of rubbing/erasing the unit figures in column No. 9 to 13, to reduce the quantity of fabrics. Two digit figures deflated to one digit like 40/46/48 into 4, 50 into 5, 60 ...

Prashant S/O Prataprao Hangargekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj348

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th November/1st December, 2005 passed by the Castes and Tribes Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, (for short the Scrutiny Committee) invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Bhope tribe'.2. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee on the following grounds.(i) The Scrutiny Committee did not consider the report of the Vigilance Cell.(ii) The Scrutiny Committee did not properly appreciate the evidence produced by the petitioner and in particular the documents at Sr. Nos. 7 and 12 as listed in the impugned order.(iii) The decision of the Scrutiny Committee is contrary to the ratio of the decision of this Court in Aniket v. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (unreported).3. Before the Scrutiny Committee in all 12 documents were produced. Documents at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 which relate to the petitioner himself, his f...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. General Employees' Union and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR150

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The petitioner filed an application in a complaint instituted by the first respondent of unfair labour practices under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the Act'). Besides the petitioner, the third respondent which is an Employees' Co-operative Canteen Society has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings in the Industrial Court. The relief which is sought in the complaint is a direction to the petitioner to treat the workmen engaged in the canteen as regular and permanent workmen of the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date on which they joined service and to extend benefits to them at par with similarly situated workmen. The maintainability of the complaint was questioned in the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen of the Canteen and the petitioner herein. A complaint under the ...

Association of the Managements of Unaided Engineering Colleges Vs. Sta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR792

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner is an Association of Unaided Private Engineering Colleges in the State of Maharashtra and is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and also as a Public Trust Act, 1950. The case of the petitioner is as under:In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra : AIR2005SC3226 , the Supreme Court has confirmed that Unaided Institutions have the right to admit students of their on choice, subject to the admission procedures being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The Supreme Court has permitted a group of institutions, imparting same or similar education, in one State or more than one State, to join together to hold a Common Entrance Test (CET for short) for admission. The Supreme Court has also permitted the State Governments to hold such CET. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court Unaided Institutions are entitled to, reserve seats not exceeding 15% for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and for their chil...

Vindhya Cast Coaters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC469

1. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of coated papers and paper boards. They are subsidiary of M/s Shree Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. but hold approx 99% share capital of the appellants. The remaining share capital is owned by promoters and their relatives. The appellants were availing benefit of SSI exemption Notification 9/99 dated 28.02.19999 and 9/2000 dated 01.03.2000. They were however issued show cause notice proposing to deny SSI exemption on the grounds that the turn over of both the companies exceeds the exemption limit, and therefore they were not eligible for SSI exemption. They were issued 7 show cause notices seeking to demand duty amounting to Rs. 23,14,689/- for the period April 1999 to June 2003. The show cause notices were confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs and demanded interest on the duty not paid. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) who relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C...

Tisco Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC15

1. Heard both sides at length on 24^th & 25^th April, 2006. We note that the matter was earlier remanded to the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 16.2.2000 in the following terms: 19. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The case is sent back to the Tribunal to entertain and examine the plea of the Revenue if the contract DM 302 is undervalued on the basis of the material already available on record. The Tribunal shall consistently with the observations made and findings recorded in this judgment hear and dispose of the appeal before it within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. The bank guarantee furnished by the appellant shall be kept alive and the amount deposited shall also continue to remain in deposit till the date of decision by the Tribunal whereafter the bank guarantee and the deposit shall be dealt with consistently with the order of the Tribunal. 20. Though we have set aside the ...

Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Babulal Purohit, Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard the ld. DR. Respondents are called absent, despite serving for notice.2. The revenue is in appeal aggrieved by order dated 30.06.2003 made by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai.3. The case in hand pertains to seizure of goods such as Mobile Phones, Video cameras, adaptors, loose key pads of Foreign Origin which were confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 on redemption fine of Rs. 90,000/- and payment of Custom duty & personal penalty imposed on the respondent. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original as it is legally not sustainable and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.4. The learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals Unit), Mumbai Airport, made the following observation in the impugned order: We are in a democratic country where rule of law is supreme. If rule says burden to prove that the goods were smuggled is on the department then it has to be discharged by the department a...

PravIn Metal Works and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are eight appeals. The issue involved is common in all the 8 appeals. Therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The issue relates to clubbing of clearances of the appellant of the item motor vehicle trailers under exemption with the other three units said to be dummy units.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of the trailers falling under Chapter 8176 of CETA 1985, since September 1982 as a S.S.I unit duly certified by the Dist. Industries Officer, Jalgaon. The appellant is a partnership concern of the partners viz. S/Shri. Ashok Prabhnkar Chaudhari. Dinesh Prabhakar Chaudhari and Pravin Prabhakar Chaudhari.All the partners are members of divided family and are individual assessees of Income Tax. The unit has its own registration under State & Central Sales Tax, Income Tax Deptt. duly allotted PAN number and its own bank account in SBI main branch. The trailers manufactured by the appellants are being sold under the brand name "Pravin"...

Parekh Platinum Ltd., Shri Rajesh Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC545

1. Vide stay order No. S/319-320/WZB/2005/C-III/EB dated 29/08/2005, the Tribunal directed Parekh Platinum Ltd. to pre-deposit 25% of the confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 12,33,39,108/-, half of which to be deposited in cash and balance half to be secured by way of bank guarantee.2. The above order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellants by way of filing writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, which stands disposed off by order dated 21/12/2005. Vide said order, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to re-hear the stay application.3. In terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court contained in the above order, the stay petition has been listed and heard today.Shri V. Sridharan, Ld. Advocate appearing along with Shri Prakash Shah, Ld Advocate, contested the demand on merits as also on the point of limitation The demand in question stands confirmed against the appellants, who are engaged in the manufacture of platinum and articles of platinum, in r...