Mumbai Court November 2002 Judgments

Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(162)ELT33(Bom)

1. In these group of petitions, the short question raised is whether the 'Autoconers' imported by the Petitioners can be denied benefit of exemption Notification No. 71/87, dated 1st March, 1987 as amended from time to time. The said exemption notification granted partial exemption from basic customs duty and total exemption from payment of additional duty to the Autoconers. There is no dispute about the payment of auxiliary of 5% on the imported Autoconers. Thus the only issue raised in this petition is regarding the availability of the exemption Notification to the Autoconers imported by the Petitioners.2. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the Notification No. 71/87-Cus., dated 1st March, 1987 as amended by Notification No. 63/89-Cus., dated 1st March, 1989 exempted Autoconers from payment of basic Customs Duty in excess of 35% and there was total exemption from payment of additional duty. By Notification No. 143/89, dated 21st April, 1989 the said exemption was deleted ...

Mohinder Singh Devyal Vs. Appajeet Devyal W/O Mohinder Singh Devyal an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR29

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration that he is the real and beneficial owner of five fully paid up shares held by the 1st defendant in the Suhas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as well the real and beneficial owner of the Flat No. 17 in the said society. He has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction and order requiring the 1st defendant to transfer to the plaintiff in the aforesaid flat the fully five paid-up shares held by the defendant No. 1 in the said society and for that purpose the defendant No. 1 should be directed to sign and execute such instruments of transfer and other deeds, documents for effectually transferring the said flat and shares in the name of the plaintiff. This is the main relief which the plaintiff has prayed for in the present suit.2. The plaintiff was the husband of the defendant No. 1 at the relevant time and he is the father of the defendant No. 2. The dispute is between the plaintiff husband and the defenda...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Satyabhama Pandurang Raipure

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)72; 2003BomCR(Cri)1698; 2003CriLJ1496

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Dhote, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant-State.2. The Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and Order of acquittal, dated 9-2-1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1988, whereby the present respondent is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dhote, the learned APP for the appellant, contended that in the instant case the prosecution has examined in all fourteen witnesses in order to prove the offences charged against the respondent. It is contended that out of these witnesses, evidence of Samadhan (PW. 5), father of deceased Shashikala, Digambar (PW. 8), Bhagwat (PW. 9) and Kasturabai (PW. 10) is relevant to unfold the material particulars of the prosecution case in respect of the offence of murder as well as dowry death and cruelty committed on the deceased by the respondent-accused. Mr. Dhote states that the evid...

Mohinder Singh Devyal Vs. Appajeet Devyal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1001; [2003]127TAXMAN428(Bom)

The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration that he is the real and beneficial owner of five fully paid-up shares held by the 1st Defendant in the Suhas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as well the real and beneficial owner of the Flat No. 17 in the said Society. He has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction and order requiring the 1st Defendant to transfer to the plaintiff in the aforesaid flat and the fully five paid-up shares held by the defendant No. 1 in the said Society and for that purpose the defendant No. 1 should be directed to sign and execute such instruments of transfer and other deeds, documents for effectually transferring the said flat and shares in the name of the plaintiff. This is the main relief which the plaintiff has prayed for in the present suit.2. The plaintiff was the husband of the defendant No. 1 at the relevant time and he is the father of the defendant No. 2. The dispute is between the plaintiff husband and the defendant No. 1-wife....

Vega Shipping and Transport Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT587Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Mondal, Consultant appearing for the appellant states that the appellant is a CHA whose licence has been suspended under the impugned order. He states that such suspension has resulted in stoppage of all work by the appellant company depriving the livelihood of about 20 of their employees. He also states that the suspension had no nexus to any wrong doing by the appellant in the recent past but relates to a case of April, 2001 decided by the Joint Commissioner in November, 2001 in which two employees of the appellant company who were involved are no longer in their employ. He submits that no personal hearing was taken before issuing the suspension order and draws our attention to the larger Bench decision of the C.E.G.A.T. in the case of Freight wings and Travels Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 226 (Tri.-LB). He has no objection to the inquiry etc. being initiated under the CHA Regulation against the appellants but he pleads that the suspension had no immediate cause a...

Hrishikesh Industrial Fabrics Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT578Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,80,159/- confirmed against the manufacturer and penalty of amount equal to duty, penalty of Rs. 25,000/-imposed upon the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the Managing Director of the company, arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the stay order dated 20-9-2001, by which he directed pre-deposit of the duty amount together with interest, penalty of equal amount and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The contention of the applicants, who are represented by their counsel, is that the bulk of the demand, Rs. 1,86,381/- has been confirmed on industrial fabrics falling under Chapter 59 on the basis of statements of purchasers of fabrics cleared from the applicants' factory, which were grey woven fabrics classifiable under CETA sub-heading 5406.10, on which no duty is chargeable. They submit that although this plea was raised before the authoritie...

Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Kamal Parsurampuria, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S.S. Bhagat learned S.D.R. appeared on behalf of the revenue.2. The learned counsel contended that the appellant is covered under Notification No. 129 dt. 17.02.1986 and the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions as mentioned in the said Notification and as such the appellant is fully entitled to the benefit as contained therein. He contended that the lower authorities have failed to deal with the conditions as mentioned therein.3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision in the case of Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in 1994 (52) ECR 366 (Bombay), and the case of Kesoram Industries Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) ELT 0694 (Tri.). he also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded ex-party in the matter. He finally concluded that since the issue involved is squarely covered by the aforesaid two decisions, the impugned orde...

Gujarat GoldcoIn Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)STR201

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 4,86,514/- and total penalty of Rs. 51,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the demand of service tax on the applicants who are availing of the technical assistance provided by an Italian company in respect of installation/erection and commissioning of plant and machinery in their factory.2. On hearing both sides I see prima facie force in the contention of the applicants that during the period in dispute namely 1st October 1998 to 30th September 2001, the availability of the services of technical assistance from a foreign company was not liable to pay service tax. Therefore, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

Manik Vishwanathrao Joshi and Sixteen ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR642

Gokhale, J.1. These petitions are filed to protect theinterest of the employees working either under theMarathwada Development Corporation and/orcompanies/units which are subsidiary to thisCorporation. The last of these petitions (WritPetition No. 5783 of 1999) is filed by oneMarathwada Janata Wikas Parishad, a voluntaryorganisation, registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860. The purpose of thispetition is also same as that of the earlierpetitions.2. All these petitions apprehend theclosure of the Marathwada Development Corporation(for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred toas the 'MDC') and the aforesaid subsidiaries andthe consequences thereof on the existing employeesand the future employment in the region. Two ofthese petitions i.e. Writ Petitions Nos. 3346 and3704, both of 1993, came up for considerationearlier. The petitions were admitted and interimrelief in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) wasgranted. In Writ Petition No. 3704 of 1993, prayerclause (b) sought...

Citi Bank N.A. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Bom)121; [2003]259ITR377(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. At the behest of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court. The three questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the burden was on the assessee to prove by cogent and convincing evidence that the recipient had actually paid tax on the income or the income had been held to be non-assessable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that whatever burden lay on the assessee for not being regarded as an assessee in default under Section 201 had been discharged ? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not barred by limitation ?' Preface :2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the Tribunal did not refer to this court the first two questions. That, the Tribunal ...