Mumbai Court October 1999 Judgments

Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Rockland Building Materials Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC503Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal from the revenue was argued by Shri Deepak Kumar, SDR.The respondents were not available although due notices was issued to them. We have taken into account the submissions made by them in their memorandum of cross objection.2. The dispute centers, around the valuation of certain machinery imported by the respondents M/s. Rockland Building Materials Ltd. The Asstt. Commissioner added to the declared price of DM 10,72,820/- the value of documentation of DM 2,00,000/- and also know-how fee of DM 3,01,000/-. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the addition of a sum of DM 2 lakhs but observed that barring a sum of DM 9,400/- the rest of the fees were not addable to the assessable value. In doing so, he had accepted a sum of DM 301.000 as given by exporters who were also collaborators of the importer. The observation of the Collector (Appeals) is as under: "The next major point of dispute was focussed on the quantum of the cost of supply of documents and services, as per the Coll...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. JaIn Irrigation Systems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT770Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent to this appeal by the department, imported in November, 1995 part of machinery for production of plastic pipes. It filed bill of entry for warehousing the goods into its 100% export oriented units. The benefit of Notification 13/81, which permits import of such goods duty free by such units was claimed. The importer, however, did not clear the goods under this bill of entry, apparently for the reason that the permission of the Development Commissioner, Free Trade Zone, a prerequisite for availing of the notification had not been granted. The importer therefore made a request to the department for clearing the goods for home consumption and for conversion of the into-bond bill of entry into a bill of entry for home consumption. The permission was granted and the bill of entry for home consumption, which was filed two days later, was assessed to duty. The importer still did not clear the goods, which continue to lie in the custody of the port trust or its agent. In May...

Saz Metals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC242Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of copper castings manufactured by the appellant. The appellant had sought their classification under Heading 7419.91. This heading is for "Other articles of copper cast, moulded, stamped or forged but not further worked." In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has held that these castings after being cast were further worked and hence were classifiable under Heading 7419.99, a residuary heading in chapter 7419 for other articles.2. It is the contention of the appellant that after the materials are cast, they are subjected to what is referred to as "proof machining".This, he says, is an operation that is intended to remove excess material on the surface, so as to locate the presence of surface defects. Such proof machining, he says, does not amount to further working of the casting. He cites the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature to Headings 7320.11 to 7419.91 in which certain op...

Ramkrishna Girishchandra Dode and Others Vs. Anand Govind Kelkar and O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR491; 1999(1)BomCR63

ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri B.P Apte, Addl. Advocate General, Shri A.K. Abhyankar, Shri S.M. Paranjape and Shri Vhatkar for the petitioners and Shri V.A. Thorat for the respondents. 2. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1991 is by 8 obstructionists Nos. 90 to 98 for whom Shri S.M. Paranjape has appeared; Writ Petition No. 2047 of 1991 is by obstructionist No. 122 whereas Writ Petition No. 2048 is by obstructionist Nos. 124 and 125 for whom Shri A.K. Abhyankar is appearing. Writ Petition No. 2066 of 1991 is by 74 obstructionists for whom I have heard Shri B.P. Apte, Writ Petition No. 2093 of 1991 is by obstructionist No. 123 for whom Shri Vhatkar is appearing. The questions of law are common arising in more or less the same set or facts. The judgments and orders of the learned trial Judge as also by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in the obstructionist proceedings were common. Hence, by consent, all matters are disposed of by this common judgment a...

Sulabha Pradip Vasa Vs. Pradip S/O Prabhulal Vasa and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR564; 2000BomCR(Cri)564; I(2001)DMC268

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the wife-original complainant challenging the order of acquittal of her husband and mother-in-law, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. 2. The petitioner had initially lodged F.I.R. with the police against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law on 31st August, 1985 for the offence of breach of trust under section 406 read with section 114 of I.P.C. for misappropriating her jewellery and other belongings between the period 4-5-1985 to 11-9-1985. She had left the matrimonial house on 4-5-1985 and gone to her parental house when the relations between the parties were cordial. When she wanted to return to the matrimonial house, her husband and in-laws did not want her to come back. In spite of the efforts made through some persons, the respondents were against her corning back to the matrimonial house. When she had gone to her parental house she had left her belongings including the go...

Tukaram Khushaba Chorge Since Deceased by His Lrs. Vs. Malam Janardhan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR461

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The legal representatives of tenant-original Defendant have filed the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the Judgment and Decree passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Pune on 30th January, 1996 whereby the said Appeal Court set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the landlady's suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide need.2. Mr. S.G. Page, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the findings of fact recorded by the Appeal Court on the questions of reasonable and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship on the ground that the Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence having reached the findings that the landlady has not been able to establish reasonable and bond fide necessity and, that in case the decree for eviction was passed in favour of the landlady greater hardship would be caused to the tenant, there was no justification for the Appeal Cou...

Apollo Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessees sought classification of four products manufactured by them under sub-heading 3003.10. The Assistant Commissioner classified three products, namely apofer syrup, apofer capsules and apohos syrup under sub-heading 2936.00 and classified apozyme liquid under sub-heading 3507.00. As a result of this classification he confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 21,197.33. The order of classification was upheld in the impugned order. Hence this appeal.2. Shri V.S. Sejpal, Chartered Accountant, states that the judgment relied upon by the Commr. (Appeals) in his order does not cover the classification of the disputed products. It is his submission that there is no case law on the differential classification of products similar to those contested in the present proceedings. Shri A. Ashokan, JDR, supports the Commissioner's order.3. We find that in the stay application it has been claimed that in pursuance of the Commissioner's order, as a pre-condition of hearing their appeal, the assess...

Jay Builders Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS.2. During the relevant account year, the assessee took three cash loans from M/s Mehta Construction, a sister concern, as under : Since taking of cash loans was in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act. To the show-cause notice issued, the assessee stated that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was withdrawn in cash from M/s Mehta Construction and given to the assessee, that by oversight the amount was shown as a loan, that no interest was paid on the said amount and the same was introduced as capital and, therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS were not attracted.3. The AO rejected the explanation as an afterthought and, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished a different explanation by lette...

Shri Bhavarilal Javarilal Modi Vs. the Nashik Merchants' Co-operative ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR247; 2000(1)BomCR583; (2000)1BOMLR288; 2000(1)MhLj328

ORDERY.K. SABHARWAL, C.J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 waive service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner gives up respondent No. 7 Chief Vigilance Commissioner. 2. The Nashik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short Bank) is respondent No. 1 in the petition. The State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner and Registrar Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies at Nashik and the Special Auditor, Class-I, Co-operative Societies are respondent Nos. 2 to 5 respectively. The 6th respondent is Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India. 3. The petitioner seeks issue of appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No. 5 to continue and complete the audit of the Bank for the year 1997-98 and submit audit report and respondent No. 6 (RBI) be directed to investigate into the allegations made by the petitioner. The grievance, as set out in the petition, in brief, is that the Bank has not permi...

Jagar Namasivayeh Arjunan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR903; 2000BomCR(Cri)903

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and arise in respect of the same set of facts but the only difference is that by Criminal Writ Petition No. 1230 of 1991 the petitioner is seeking to quash the process issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate presiding in 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay in Case No. 74/CW/91 while in Criminal Writ Petition No. 343 of 1993 the petitioner is seeking quashing of show-cause notice issued under section 124 of Customs Act on 4-2-1991 bearing Reference No. CTU-INF-2/90/S/10-8/91 CTU. As both the petitions involve same set of facts, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The complaint filed by the Customs Authority against the petitioner briefly stated is as follows:The petitioner who is a Singapore National and having Singapore Passport had arrived in Bombay from Singapore on 8th August 1990 on his way to Cairo. He made a halt at Bombay and kept his goods, which he was carrying, in th...