Mumbai Court June 2002 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Target Marketing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC426

1. The two questions for consideration in this appeal are the classification of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) manufactured by the respondent and inclusion in the value of such UPS the batteries for such machines that it supplied.2. The classification determined by the larger bench of the Tribunal of such goods under heading 85.04 in its decision in Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE having been confirmed by the Supreme Court while disposing of the appeal by J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 9175 of 1995), we confirm the correctness of the classification determined by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the respondent supplied the batteries from its depot to buyer, and after examination of figures, noted that the number of batteries supplied did not necessarily tally with the number of UPS supplied and thus concluded that the activity of supply of batteries was not necessarily related to the manufacture of UPS. The appeal does not cite any...

intel Design Systems (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT559Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1,26,856/-.The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the stay application and heard the Departmental Representative.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the power supply unit for tanks manufactured by the applicant are correctly classifiable under Heading 85.36 of the tariff as apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electric circuits and not under Heading 87.10 claimed by the assessee, as parts of tanks and other fighting vehicles.3. The assessee's contention is that since the goods are supplied on the orders of the Ministry of Finance for fitment to tanks and such other vehicle they must be considered to be parts. We are prima facie unable to accept this contention. The heading proposed by the department appears to us to be more appropriate. The goods are in any case prima facie excluded from classification in Chapter 87 by Note 2(f...

Hindustan Electronic Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC1035Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of goods described as electronic games and claimed their clearance under special import licence that it produced. The department was of the view that the goods were classifiable under Heading 9504.90 of the customs tariff and that of the Schedule to the Import Policy aligned with the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) and that therefore the special import licence was not acceptable. A specific import licence was required.2. The importer waived issue of written notice and was heard by the Deputy Commissioner. This officer, passed orders which have been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding the goods not to be covered by the licence for the reason that they were classifiable under Heading 9504.90, ordering their confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of fine and imposing a penalty on the importer. Hence this appeal.3. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and heard ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hede Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR196; (2002)4BOMLR556; (2003)180CTR(Bom)70; [2002]258ITR380(Bom); 2002(4)MhLj260

V.C. Daga, J.1. This tax appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue setting out certain questions of law. For the sake of brevity, we reframed and modified the question reading, as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee in converting the godown taken on lease intooffice premises could be termed as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure ?'Facts in brief :2. The brief facts pertaining to the case are as under : The assessee is a private limited company carrying on a business at various places, inter alia, at Mumbai. The assessment year involved is 1988-89. The assessee filed its return on June 30, 1988, declaring taxable income of Rs. 20,267. The assessee spent Rs. 9,20,436 for converting the godown premises into office by renovating it, incurring expenses on interior decoration, which resulted in replacement of existing roof with that of cement sheets, replacement of floor with that of marble, plastering...

Sesa Goa Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR84; (2002)4BOMLR229; 2002(4)MhLj507

V.C. Daga, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. Parties were also given opportunity to circulate their written submissions in support of their oral submissions. In these petitions, the parties are same, issues raised herein are identical and can be disposed of by common Judgment, as such, both petitions were heard together. FACTUAL MATRIX Factual matrix, in both petitions, lies in a narrow compass and it is thus : 2. The petitioner is a mining company engaged in operation of extraction, processing and export of mineral ore from its various mines located in Goa. It also deals with resale of scrap, by-products, oils and lubricants and motor vehicles spares including tyres and tubes etc. required for transporting minerals. The petitioner is also a registered small scale industrial unit (SSI unit) engaged in the business of manufacturing barges at Sirsaim, Goa. 3. The first writ petition being W.P. No. 164/2002, is directed against the notice bearing ...

Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR412; 2002(6)BomCR168; (2002)4BOMLR344; [2003]41SCL259(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', The respondent Tata Finance Limited has initiated arbitration proceedings. During the course of the arbitration proceedings, the Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. questioned the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to proceed. It was the petitioner's contention that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration in view of the fact that the reference before the BIFR regarding the petitioner-company was pending. It is contended that in view of the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Arbitrator must stay the arbitration proceedings as he has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. The Arbitrator, therefore, framed the following questions :--'Whether the Respondents prove that the Learned Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to decide this Arbitration in view of the fact that...

Shri Sadashiv Krishna Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003CriLJ3590

J.G. Chitre, J. 1. None present for the appellant. Shri Adsule, A.P.P. for the prosecution. The appeal pertains to year 1998 and accused are in jail. Therefore, this appeal which has been listed in the daily board is being decided finally. 2. The appellant Sadashiv Krishna Shetty is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 145 of 1995, whereby the learned Judge had convicted the appellant for committing the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 397 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for 7 days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been inflicted on him. 3. The prosecution case ...

Ganesh Raghunath Samel Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR213; 2002(4)BomCR425

1. The petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate direction by quashing and setting aside of the order dated 7th of November, 2001, passed by the Dy. Collector, Raigad Alibag, Dist. Raigad, respondent 3 herein in Village Panchayat Appeal No. 17 of 2001 and confirmed by the Commissioner on 28th February, 2002. 2. The petitioner was elected as Committee Member of Group Gram panchayat Nizampur, Taluka Mangaon, Dist. Raigad on 23rd of January, 1999. The petitioner contested for the office of Deputy Sarpanch and was elected as Deputy Sarpanch. 3. Respondents 6 to 17 were the members of the said Gram Panchayat. They sent a notice of No Confidence Motion with the Tahsildar, respondent 4 on September 20, 2001. 4. The respondent 2 instead of convening and holding a meeting within seven days, as required by sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), convened a meeting on 29th of September, 2001 i.e. after stipulate...

Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(234)ELT45(Bom); 2009[13]STR24

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming refund of the admitted amount on admitted facts.The entitlement of the petitioner to claim refund is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was allowed provisional clearance to clear goods on payment of duty, on the enhanced value. On 14th December, 1998, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Goa, issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the same was confirmed against the petitioner.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of confirmation, the petitioner carried an appeal to the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CEGAT'), Mumbai. The CEGAT was pleased to reduce the fine and penalty by Order dated 9th November, 2001 (Tri.-Mum.)]. The petitioner made representation to the Department; wherein the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to refund the excess amount which was paid by the petitioner at the time of provisional assessment. Finding no attempt on the part of re...

Dhananjay N. Khalwadekar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under Clause (b) of Section 112 of the Act in relation to his role in the smuggling of 945 kgs. of silver at Tak beach near Vengurla on 6.10.92.2. Acting on prior information, the officers of Rummaging and Intelligence Division of the Mumbai custom house and the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai received look out for and intercepted a truck carrying the silver in question on the night of 6^th October, 1992. The driver and other occupants of the truck escaped in the following interception. The officers brought the truck and silver to Mumbai where it was seized. Evidence obtained in the course of subsequent investigation indicated that the smuggling had been planned by Mohd. Dossa and Mohd. Kalia. They sought for and obtained the use of the truck belonging to Rs. Prabhu Zantye, who lived in Azgaon. The assistance of Sunil Nate...