Mumbai Court March 1998 Judgments

Ganesh Agro Steel Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Rectification application is directed against the Tribunal's Final Order No. 336/97/WZB, dated 6-1-1997. The Tribunal in that case decided the eligibility of the applicants to Notification No. 208/83 which exempts final product mentioned therein from duty provided the inputs for the goods are those on which the excise duty leviable has already been paid. There is an explanation to the notification that for the purposes of the notification all stocks of input in the country, except stocks as are clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid, shall be deemed to be inputs on which duty has already been paid. The Tribunal found on facts that in the case of the applicants, the inputs had been received from original manufacturers who had cleared them at Nil rate of duty and the Tribunal therefore concluded that the applicants have been rightly held to be ineligible for the exemption under Notification No. 208/83. On limitation also the Tribunal held that the charge of non-disclosure of...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)LC429Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The importer respondent in this departmental appeal imported a consignment of Acephate. In the bill of entry filed for the clearance of the goods it declared the country of origin as USA. The goods were shipped from Hong Kong and invoice issued by the supplier at Hong Kong.On being asked by the Custom House the importer produced copy of manufacturer's invoice. The Custom House found that the value declared was low compared to the value of similar goods imported by other persons from Singapore. Notice also was issued proposing increase in the value of the goods in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Rules. Since Custom House had not gone to examine import of identical goods of US original from Hong Kong.2. After considering the representation by the importer the Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice and increased the value from US $ 4 to US $ 6.75 per kg. The importer appealed from this order to Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the goods were of US origin and compa...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Biochem Synergy Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT613Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Two appeals, one by the Commissioner of Customs and the other by the importer, against the order of the Commissioner are being disposed by this order.2. The importer imported in July, 1991 a consignment of rifamycin-S. It claimed clearance of the goods in terms of the Open General Licence as mentioned in Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, Entry No. 481 of the Import-Export Policy, 1990-1993. The goods in this appendix are permitted to be imported by Actual User (Industrial). Actual User (Industrial) is defined in sub-para (3), para 7 as an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of any goods for which he holds a valid licence or registration certificate from the appropriate Government authority wherever applicable. The department noted that, when the goods were imported, the importer was not in possession of a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to manufacture drugs and therefore form the view that the importer was not an Actual [user] (Industrial). Notice was issued propo...

Cce Vs. Parle Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(76)LC437Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. The dispute in the appeal is whether cost of 7-ply cardboard cartons provided by the respondent as packing for confectionery as well as biscuits manufactured by the respondent and supplied to Canteen Stores Department has to be included in the assessable value. The plea of the respondent that packing was given only at the specific request of the Canteen Stores Department was accepted by the Collector (Appeals) who set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. In the respondent's own case we set aside a contrary order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in respect of two demands by Final Order No. 1975-1976/97-A, dated 27.10.1997 (Appeals E/2522-2523/90-A) holding that the extra packing was not the normal packing for supply of goods in the wholesale trade and therefore the cost thereof cannot be included in the assessable value...

Jindal Trading Co. and anr. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

1. Both the appeals directed against the orders passed by the Recovery Officer auctioning the property and even confirming the sale are being disposed of by this common judgment.The decree-holder Bank had obtained money decree in Suit No. 552/86 from Jullandhar Court on 28.7.1987 for Rs. 21,17,551.64 along with future interest. The said decree was sought to be executed by the sale of mortgaged property. The execution proceedings came to be transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in view of the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.The Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation and the property which was already mortgaged with the Bank was put to auction on 6,3.1997. The highest bid for Rs. 43,47,000/- in favour of respondent No. 3 M/s.Jogasingh Sons was accepted.3. The objection petition for challenging the auction stood dismissed by the Recovery Officer resulting into the confirmation of the sale on 12.9.1997 and issuing of the sale c...

Shri Anthony John Pereira Vs. the Minister for Urban Development, Gove ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR457; 1998(3)BomCR453; (1998)1BOMLR267; 1998(2)MhLj404

ORDERV.P.Tipnis, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the Assessment Order Nos. 139 and 613 dated 14-6-1995 and 6-8-1996, as also the order of the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development passed in the appeal on 3-1-1997, are impugned.2. The respondent-CIDCO is a Development Authority for the purposes of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short, the M.R. & T.R Act) in respect of an area under its jurisdiction. On 8-7-1991, She petitioner applied to the CIDCO for development permission in respect of Survey Nos. 259 to 267, 269 to 271, 273, and 276 to 279 under section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. By letter dated 30-8-1991, the C.I.D.C.O. informed the petitioner that the development permission, as requested, is refused under section 41 (i) and (iii) of the M.R.T.P. Act. The reasons given were that: (1) the Development Plan for the area under reference was not ready, (2) the existing infrastructure facilities are inadequate and (3) water supply scheme has not been sub...

Vinayak Keshav Paranjape Vs. Dena Bank and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR186

ORDERA.B. Palkar, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant No. 2 Vinayak Keshav Paranjape in Special Civil Suit No. 67 of 1978 against a decree for Rs. 26,750/ - with costs and future interest at the rate of seventeen and half per cent on the principal amount of Rs. 20,000/- against the appellant along with other two defendants jointly and severally. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, the following brief summary of facts is material. The parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as in the trial Court. The suit was filed by Dena Bank against defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Defendant No. 1 being M/s. Suresh Chapel Company, a registered partnership firm dealing in manufacturing foot wears at Nazi of which defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the partners, at the relevant time when loan was advanced by the plaintiff Bank to the defendant. The plaintiff Bank advanced a loan of Rs. 20,000/- to defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 being the partner of defendant N...

Jawahar Ramanlal Shah Vs. Lalita Jawahar Shah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR579; 1998(5)BomCR360; I(1999)DMC434

ORDERSmt. Ranjana Desai, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 4th February, 1993, passed by the Family Court No. Ill at Pune in Petition No. A-503 of 1993. The petition was filed by Sou. Lalita Jawahar Shah against her husband Shri Jawahar Ramanlal Shah under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband Jawahar Ramanlal Shah prayed for divorce by filing a counter claim on the ground of cruelty and desertion. By the impugned judgment and order the Family Court allowed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed the counter claim of the husband for divorce. For the sake of convenience the wife and the husband are hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and respondent respectively according to their original status. 2. Shortly stated the facts on the basis of which the petition came to be filed are as under :(a) Admittedly the marriage between Lalita Shah and Jawahar Shah took place on 2...

Shri Shivraj Chandrappa Yadav Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)376; 1998CriLJ3168

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. By this Criminal Revision Application the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 17th November, 1990 passed by the second Addition-al Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1989, maintaining the judgment and order dated 21.12.1988 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.130 of 1987 convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter :i) Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code to under go R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 1 month; andii) Under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days. The Substantive sentences of the petitioner were directed to run concurrently by the trial Court.2. The concurrent finding of the courts below is that on 19.8.1987 at about 11.30 a.m. Sunita P.W.2, had come to the house of the petitioner to call his daughter Chingi. The petition...

Commissioner of Cus. and C Ex. Vs. Mustan Taharbhai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT367Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is by the Commissioner for stay of the operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was against the order of the Superintendent assessing to duty a ship MV Vishwa-Yash purchased by the respondent before us for breaking up into scrap. The Superintendent has said in the letter that ship would assessable to Customs duty under Heading 8908.00 of the Tariff and to special Customs duty and additional duty under Heading 8908.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) it was contended that the ship was built in 1973 at Vishakhapatnam by M/s Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and is exempted by Notification 118/59, dated 13th June, 1959 from Customs duty and that there is no provision for levy of Customs duty on goods manufactured in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the contention that the liability to duty of the ship arose when it was manufactured in Customs bond and cleared ther...