Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

iqbal Abdul Khaliq Ahmed and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1452

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are as follows.2. The petitioners are the Directors of M/s. Recon Oil Industries Limited which was formerly known as M/s. Recon Enterprises Private Ltd. By virtue of the provisions of Section 43-A of the Companies Act, the said Company became a deemed public company with effect from 1-7-1994.3. The said Company is engaged in manufacturing of edible oils and the products are distributed all over the country. The said Company has its manufacturing unit at Mumbai and does not have any manufacturing branch or unit located either at Mumbai or at Amravati. However, it has appointed various carrying and forwarding agents throughout the country including the one at Nagpur. The day to day affairs of the Company as to manufacturing and sale are carried out through a person nominated under Section 17(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.4. It is alleged by the respondent that the respondent drew a sam...

Shajaji Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 39,40,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad as a result of rejection of the assessees' claim for re-determination of annual production of annual production capacity under Section 3A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that they had availed of the procedure of compounded levy under Rule 96ZO(3) at their option and hence cannot claim the benefit of determination of actual production capacity under Section 3A(4) of the Act.2. None appeared for the applicants; hence we have heard the ld. D.R.and perused the records. We find that in the recent judgment in the case of Union of India v. Supreme Steels and General Mills (2001 (47) RLT 129 (SC), the Apex Court has held that assessee having opted for determination of duty liability on the basis of annual production capacity under Rule 96ZO(3), cannot opt for assessment on the basis of actual production under Section 3A(4) during ...

Shri Chandrakant K. Zangda Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT368Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three stay applications are taken up for disposal in these three appeals by this common order since the applicant as a proprietor of 3 different firms has filed these appeals against a similar issues decided by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad and Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Mumbai Customs House as regards the valuation of certain electronic components imported by them.2. We have heard both sides and find that the ld. advocate for the applicant has pointed out the discrepancies on the relied upon documents obtained from Customs & Excise Department, Hongkong. The said documents do not confirm, to the law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. East Punjab Traders 1997 (89) ELT 11 (SC), in as much as the documents relied upon are photo copies of certain papers obtained and they are not authenticated. The ld. advocate also drew our attention to paragraph 22 and 23 of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmed...

Fairco Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC428

1. The appellant imported defective CRGO sheets under the strength of two REP licences. These licences were issued on 27/08/1990 and 26/09/1991. At that time of import the 1990-93 Import Trade Control Policy was in force. The items made importable under the Policy 1988-90 were not permissible in the later Policy. The licence dated 27/08/1990 contained the prescription that provisions of 1988-90 Policy would apply. The licence dated 26/09/1991 referred to the relevant provisions in the 1983-84 Policy. The Commissioner held that the imports had taken place when the 1990-93 Policy was in operation. Anything which was inconsistent with that Policy was not permissible import. He found that the provisions under the 1990-93 Policy did not permit importation of such goods under such licence and held that the import was as without the cover of licence, he confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) but permitted their redemption on fine. He also imposed penalty on the importers. Hence this appe...

Thakkar Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC411

1. This appeal has been filed by Proprietor, Shri Vijay T. Thakkarda a Custom House Agent holding a Customs House Agent Licence holder holding Licence No. CHA No. 11/1065 for the last twelve years or so. On or around 10.01.01 a container was intercepted and was found to contain consumer gods imported by the one M/s. Kureshi International; this was sought to be cleared through the customs by employing the appellant Custom House Clearing agent. A Bill of Entry was filed in pursuance of the same. Some inquires made by the officers resulted in realizing that thee was a mis-declaration of the contents of the container under import in a such as Brand name make of Foreign origin goods and country origin in the Bill of Entry was not found correctly declared and values of the goods were also misdeclared. The goods were examined under A Panchanama, the address and particulars of the importers as available with the agent were provided to the department. The offices of the appellant herein were a...

Dabhol Power Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC419

1. Duty demand of Rs. 275,34,45,737/- has been confirmed against the applicants herein, holding that items of equipments, machinery etc.imported for Liquefied Natural Gas (herein after referred to as LNG) facility by the applicants are not entitled to assessment under Tariff Item 9801.00(3) as well as under Tariff Item 9801.00(1) as project imports either for initial setting up or for substantial expansion of an existing unit of a power project and holding that the portion of the value of the off-shore service contract is liable to be added to the declared value of the equipments etc. imported for the LNG facility. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 45 crores has been imposed on the applicants herein in terms of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. We have heard both sides. We note that the only customer of the applicants Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MESB) has failed to make payment of the money owing by it to the applicants pursuant to the provisions of the Power Purchase Ag...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. AshwIn C. Shah

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD573(Mum.)

1. The only question in all these appeals is whether the stock exchange card held by the assessees in the Bombay Stock Exchange is an asset within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and consequently wealth-tax is payable thereon.2. This issue had arisen in a number of appeals before the Bombay Benches of the Tribunal and in view of conflicting views and the importance of the issue, the matter was referred to a Special Bench in the case of Shirish C. Dave, Mumbai in W. T. A. Nos. 442 to 444/Bom of 1993. While the matter was pending before the Special Bench, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad v. Asst. CIT [2001] 248ITR 209, in which it was held that the stock exchange card is not a property and therefore cannot be attached under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, when the appeals concerning this issue came up before the Bombay Benches of the Tribunal, the Tribunal purporting to follow the above decision...

Vitthal Shriram Kharbadkar Vs. Pandurang Irbhanji Kadu

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR757; 2002(3)BomCR593; 2002(3)MhLj448

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. The application is disposed of at the admission stage, with consent of the counsel for the parties appearing before me. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 129/2000 challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Murtizapur in Reg. Civil Suit No. 52/1996 below the application Exh. 46, under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the applicant has committed breach of injunction. The Trial Court has rejected the application. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed the order of detaining the applicant in custody for 15 days for having committed breach of the injunction order. 3. It is contended by Shri. Kaptan, the Learned Counsel for the applicant, that the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the order passed by the Trial Court on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Proce...

Dinkar Ananda Mane Deceased Through Heir Shivaji Dinkar Mane Vs. Pandu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)MhLj723

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Some facts need to be disclosed for the purposes of unfolding the matter and the controversy. The land in question are Survey Nos. 499/1, 498/11, 513/8 and 500/5 which are now consolidated in Gat No. 1023 admeasuring 3 Hectares and 41 Ares, situate at village Charegaon, Taluka Karad (hereinafter referred to as the suit land for convenience). Deceased Pandurang Dnyanu Bendre was the predecessor in title of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and was the original landlord of the suit land. Deceased Dinkar Ananda Mane, father of the present petitioner, was the tenant of half portion of the land. Deceased Pandurang Dnyanu Bendre had obtained exemption certificate in view of provisions of Section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Tenancy Act' for convenience) and had obtained an order of possession of his share in Gat No. 1023 by instituting a proceeding under Section 33B of the Act. An order was passed in Tenancy Case ...

Heritage Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC409

1. This appeal is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his impugned order has directed as follows: "12. I accordingly set aside the adjudication Order-in-Original and remand the matter to the lower authority for denovo adjudication, keeping in mind my observations recorded herein above. While fixing the redemption fine amount an penalty amount, the Adjudicating Authority will keep in mind, inter alia, the parameters laid down in the above mentioned CEGAT's order in the case of M/s. R.B. Enterprises, various departmental instructions in the matter, appropriate contemporary market enquiry with reference to the colour and country of original of the marble, gravity of offence committed with knowledge that the importation of such goods has to be covered by valid import licence etc." 2. I have heard both sides and considered the submissions of the learned Advocate and DR. From the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), as extracted herein above I do not find that the Commissio...