Mumbai Court April 2002 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Grauer and Weil (India) Ltd. and or ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These six appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay II.2. In that order, the Commissioner, adjudicating on a notice issued to Grauer & Weil (India) Ltd, the assessee, and to Umesh More, Vasant Kulkarni, Suresh Parekh, (its managing director, Vice President, and President), Balkrishna Agarwal, proprietor of Hi-Fin Industries (Hi-Fin for short) and Satish Shirodkar, its manager. The notice alleged that Graurer & Weil supplied to Hi-Fin nter alia partially manufactured electroplating chemicals at a much lower value than the actual value; Hi-fin completed the process required to make the electroplating processes and sent them back to Grauer & Weil, after paying duty at the lower value than it ought to have. Grauer & Weil thereafter sold these goods at a much higher price. The notice alleged that Hi-fin was a dummy and attributed the activities that it stated to have carried out to Grauer & Weil. Penalties were therefore proposed for...

Ongc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT340Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 16,98,52,336/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,22,51,210/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.The demand of duty has been confirmed on the ground of under valuation of C2C3 (Ethane Propane) manufactured and cleared by the applicants during the period April, 1994 to January, 2000 at the rate of Rs. 3,300/- P.M.T. while the revised prices, fixed and based on methodology of taking into consideration the prevailing price of natural gas approved by the Ministry of Petroleum, were as under :- 2. The duty has been paid by the applicants and hence the application is confined to waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.3. We have heard Shri Rajsinghani, ld. Counsel who contends that the demands raised in the show cause notices are barred by limitation since the applicants never suppressed any material facts and the prices we...

Vikram Green Tech (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT319Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 15,04,590/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants herein are 100% EOU engaged in producing cut flowers for export purpose. Fresh cut flowers are covered under Chapter Heading 06.03 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, whereas, they are not covered by any of the entries in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are hence non-excisable goods. The appellants had cleared part of their produce to Domestic Tariff Area in terms of Sub-clause (b) to Clause II of Sales of Agro Products Guidelines for sale of goods in DTA and in terms of Appendix 42 of Hand Book of Procedures 1997-2000 as amended, without payment of any duty of excise or customs during the period April, 1998 to December, 1999. 4 show cause notices were issued to them proposing recovery of duty and imposition of penalty on the grounds inter alia, th...

Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)85ITD59(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee-company pertains to the assessment year 1996-97. Only two issues are involved in this appeal which are taken up in seriatim.2. Ground No. 1 is with regard to the addition of Rs. 7,11,029 referable to the claim of deduction on account of payment of hire-purchase charges. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of ball pens, refill etc. On a total turnover of Rs. 2.33 crores, the assessee incurred a commercial loss of Rs. 13.41 lakhs and the sundry debtors were to the tune of Rs. 7.04 crores. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee filed a return showing loss of Rs. 10,33,885 which was originally processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act but later taken up for scrutiny and accordingly notices were issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of hire-purchase charges of Rs. 7,11,029 towards amo...

Fedroline Anthoney Joseph Vs. Vinod Vishanji Dharod and Hazol Rodrique ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR582; 2002(3)MhLj865

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 30th August 1980 has been filed by the first respondent to which the Applicant herein is the first defendant. The suit was instituted in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, on 16th January 1998 and is pending. In the suit, the Applicant has filed a Written Statement.2. A preliminary objection was sought to be urged on behalf of the Applicant to the maintainability of the suit, on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the Trial Court was requested to frame a preliminary issue on the question of limitation. A perusal of the application filed before the Trial Court would show that a fairly detailed analysis of facts was sought to be presented in the application on the basis of which it was urged that the suit was barred by limitation. In reply thereto, the first respondent contended that the application was filed merely to delay the trial of the suit and that the application wh...

Brihan Mumbai Union of Journalists and ors. Vs. Nav Bharat Press Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR361; [2002(95)FLR1116]; (2002)IIILLJ879Bom

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 17 are employed with Respondent No. 1 either falling in the category of Journalists or non-working Journalists. The Petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union. The Petitioners filed a complaint being Complaint No. 1039/2001. In the complaint it was alleged that the Respondents have engaged in and continue to engage in unfair labour practices from November 28, 2001 under Items 3,5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. Respondent No. 1 is a Company engaged in printing and publishing a newspaper known as Nava Bharat in Hindi. The Respondents also undertake work jobs of various other local newspaper such as Nav Nagar, Janmudra, Dinman, Maha Janshakti etc. Respondent No. 1 is in existence for more than 4 years. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company. Respondent No. 1 employs more than 125 employees and has establishments at Navi Mumbai and Chinchpokli. I...

Smruti NavIn Naulakha Vs. NavIn Subhash Naulakha

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR591

J.G. Chitre, J.1. This transfer petition has been filed by one Smruti Navin Naulakha who happens to be the respondent in Family Court Petition No. A-1038 of 2001 which is pending before Court No. 6 of Family Court at Bandra intending towards achieving the goal of dissolution of marriage by decree which has been filed by Navin Subhash Naulakha. Smruti called hereinafter for convenience as wife and Navin would be called for convenience as husband in the course of this order. The wife has filed this petition with a prayer to withdraw it from said Court No. 6 of Family Court, Bandra and to transfer for the decision according to law to Family Court, Pune. The spouses have an offspring out of the said wedlock, who happens to be a female child aged about 21/2 years old at present. Her name is Abha. 2. In the present petition, wife has put forth her difficulties which she would face, according to her in attending said Family Court for trial of said matrimonial petition. The husband has resiste...

Smt. Bhikubai W/O Nathu Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR926

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Shri Mantri, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.B. Ghatge, learned A.P.P., appears for Respondent No. 1 and waives service. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel i/b Shri Palnitkar, Advocate appears and waives service for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.Rule. By consent, Rule returnable forthwith.2. The Respondent No. 2 was the owner of the land in dispute bearing G. No. 84 of revenue village Chamgaon, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'). By an agreement of sale dated 14.6.1993, the Respondent No. 2 agreed to sell the said land to the petitioner No. 1 and executed a registered agreement of sale in her favour. It is alleged by the petitioners that on the next day i.e. on 15th June, 1993, the Respondent No. 2 handed over the possession of the said land to the petitioner. This fact of alleged handing over of possession is denied by the Respondent No. 2 who claims to be in possession of the said land. It is alleged that the permi...

intel Design Systems (India) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC154Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for restoration of the above appeal is allowed in terms of the High Court's Order dated 18-12-2001 in Writ Petition No.5970/2001.2. The authorities below have classified the parts and accessories of electrical machinery and equipment such as fuses, switches, etc., used in tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles of the Ministry of Defence under Chapter Heading 8536.90 rejecting the claim of the assessee for classification of the goods in question under Chapter sub-heading 8710.00 as parts of "tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, motorised". The appellant's claim is based upon the fact that the goods are manufactured for Ministry of Defence of the Government of India, strictly as per drawings and designs supplied by the Ministry of Defence and the goods are manufactured solely and principally for fitting into tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles.3. We have heard Shri L.B. Attar, learned Counsel and Shri B.B. Sarkar, learned DR.4. As per Explanatory Not...

Ramesh Ramaji Akre and ors. Vs. Smt. Mangalabai Wd/O Pralhad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR183; 2002(3)MhLj579

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Gharote, learned Counsel for the applicants, and Shri Shukla, learned Counsel for the non-applicants.2. The revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-1995 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur below Exh. 1 in Regular Darkhast No. 25/1995 whereby Executing Court issued warrant of possession against the present applicants (original plaintiffs) under Order XXI, Rule 32(1) read with Order XXXIX, Rule 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant facts, which have given rise to the controversy in issue, are as follows :3. The applicants filed Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 2262/1992 against the Corporation of City of Nagpur and deceased Pralhad Ramaji Akre, husband of non-applicant No. 1 and father of non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. It was pleaded by the applicants in the suit that they were in possession of shop No. 26 situated at Fuloli, Itwari, Nagpur and were doing business of sale of flowers in the said premises since long. The ...