Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Shri Gulabrao Sahebrao Shinde Vs. Shri Sayaji Shankar Shinde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR742; 2004(3)BomCR159; 2004(1)MhLj873

1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated March 2, 1990 in Revision Application No. MRT-NS/VIII/89 (TNC.B.210/89). The land in question is agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 323 and 799 situated at Village Jamb, Taluka Wai, District Satara. The said land was originally owned by Smt. Housabai Govind Shinde. The said Housabai executed a Lease Deed in favour of the Petitioner on September 20, 1987. One of the condition stated in this Lease Deed is that the Petitioner has been put in actual possession of the suit land along with crops, on condition of payment of 1/3rd (one-third) crops share to said Housabai. On 28th September 1987, Smt. Parvatibai Sudan Sakunde, the grand daughter of Housabai and Smt. Tarabai Anandrao Babar, step-mother of Smt. Parvatibai, executed a Consent Deed to the Agreement dated September 20, 1987 executed by Housabai in favour of the Petition...

Mrs. Hema Ravishankar Vs. K.R. Ravishankar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR124; 2004(3)BomCR143; 2004CriLJ1205; I(2004)DMC414

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, No. II, Pune, dated 8th May 2003, below Exhibit 238 in Petition No. A-605 of 2000; and 17th May 2003 in Petition No. A-605 of 2000, respectively. The said proceedings have been instituted by the Respondent - husband against the Petitioner wife for divorce and custody of their minor child Shrikrishna.2. The Petitioner and the Respondent were married on 30th June 1994 and Shrikrishna was born on 30th March 1996. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner and her child of 4 years were thrown out of the matrimonial home unceremoniously in June 2000 and since then, the Petitioner, along with her child, is staying separately. Initially, she stayed with her sister at Mumbai, and, now, has acquired her own house on monthly rent basis. The Petitioner is gainfully employed and is stated to be lecturer in South Mumbai College.3. D...

Dina International, Rajnish Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC93

1. Dina International, the appellant in appeal 1300/02 imported in February 2001 goods stated in the bill of entry filed for their clearance to be components of 20 "artificial lung ventilator with integrated Anaesthetic unit type 'Julian'." The importer claimed the benefit of the exemption from duty of Customs contained in notification 51/00. The advance import licence was also submitted. The notification exempts from duty goods imported under advance licence and subject to inter alia the conditions to be utilised in the manufacture of the goods to be exporled. The examination of the imported goods led the departmental officers to believe that what was imported were not components of the machine as stated but a fully assembled machine.After conducting investigation, notice was issued to the importer, Harish Kotlia, its President, the Rajnish Varma, its General Manager proposing confiscation of the goods under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act, demanding duty on five such m...

D.C. Polyester Ltd. and Virendra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who in the impugned order demanded a total duty of Rs. 1,75,19,139/- from the applicant (D.C. Polyester Ltd), imposed of penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the applicant (Virendra Processors Pvt. Ltd.) (VPPL).2. The facts briefly are that the applicant DCPL is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapters 52,54,55 of Central Excise Tarrif Act. During the relevant time the applicant was receiving inputs from M/s Virendra Processors Pvt. Ltd. who are themselves engaged in the manufacture of processed fabrics. M/s DC Polyester Ltd. process the inputs thus received on a job work basis and send them back to M/s Virendra Processors Pvt. Ltd. without payment of duty. The Department contends that return of fabrics after job work is under job work Notification No. 214/86 dated 25/3/86 which does not cover the processed fabrics falling under chapter ...

India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 62,78,480/- and penalty of equivalent amount.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. Letter of the counsel requesting adjournment on the ground that he is engaged in a matter in the Gujarat High Court. The matter has already been adjourned at the request of the counsel and there is no sufficient basis made out for adjournment.3. The applicant was engaged in the manufacture of ossein, di calcium phosphate and gelatine. It took credit of the duty paid on inputs that it used in the manufacture of the final product. Notice issued to it alleged that the assessee had contravened the provision of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and therefore the applicability of Rule 6 of this rules on the ground that modvat credit had been taken in contravention in provision of Rule 3 of the duty paid on furnace oil used in the manufacture of ossein di calcium phosphate as these were exempted from duty. It is on adjournm...

Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the determination of value, for the purpose of assessment, of lubricating oils imported by Castrol (India) Ltd., the appellant. The Special Valuation Branch (SVB) took up for consideration the question as to whether any addition was to be made in the value of such oils imported by the appellant from Castrol (UK) Ltd. and Castrol (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and other such companies. After considering the agreement entered into by the appellant for technical collaboration with Castrol (UK) Ltd., the Assistant Commissioner found that the royalty payable by the Indian importer to Castrol (UK) Ltd. in respect of imports made from that company was to form part of the value of such oils. In the absence of any specific figure in the agreement as to the amount payable, he derived at a figure of 6.71% of the CIF value, after taking into account the value of the oils imported and the royalty paid in 1993, 1994 and 1995. He, therefore, ordered additio...

Shri Sanjeev JaIn and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. G. B. Yadav. Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that by the impugned order the Commissioner has imposed penalties on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. At the outset the learned counsel submitted that the value of the cement involved in the case is Rs. 41/2 lakhs and as per the chemical analysis report available at page 84, it is stated that "the sample is the form of grey coloured powder with small friable lumps. It has the chemical composition of cement but not possessing good setting property. It appears to be damaged.However for ascertaining quality and use, the sample may be forwarded to the Director, CRCL, New Delhi/or National Test House for further quality assurance if required.Sealed sample may be collected within a fortnight from this office, if required." 3. Thus from the above chemical report, it is clear that once the cement alleged to have been not declared were damaged, it is hardly of any value. However...

Cc (import) Vs. Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal at the instance of Revenue challenging order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.5.98. The issue to be considered in this case is one regarding the date with reference to 7 which rate of duty is to be decided.2. The respondent imported 200 bags of Glucona Delta Lactone F 5010 under Bill of Entry No. 10408 dated 31.10.95 and warehoused the same under Bond dated 6.12.95. The period of the bond expired on 5.12.96.The respondent failed to ex-bond the goods during the validity period and requested for clearance of the goods on 8.10.97. He sought to pay the interest and duty as applicable on the date of clearance.Department took the view that rate of duty shall be applicable as on the date of expiry of bond period. The adjudicating authority took the view that the importer had unauthorisedly kept the goods in the warehouse and that the expiry of bond is to be taken as the date of deemed removal of the goods. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme C...

Nikko Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT223Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Notice dated 22.1.1999 issued to Nikko Pneumatics Pvt Ltd, the assessee, demanded duty on solenoid valves and parts of these valves manufactured by it, on the ground that they bore upon them the name of "Advance System Controls" which was a brand name within the meaning of the explanation to notification 1/93.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of inter alia solenoid valves and solenoid coil for spares. We are concerned in this appeal with clearances of such goods alleged to have the brand name "Advance System Control" manufactured and cleared by the appellant between December 1993 to October 1998. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that the goods were classifiable in sub heading 8481.10 of the tariff for use in refrigerating or air conditioning appliances and machinery and therefore not entitled to the exemption contained in notification 1/93.The assessee replied to the notice contending that the valves were not for use in r...

Mamta Fashions, Mamta Choudhary, Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT548Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts leading to the filing of the present applications are that against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, holding 750 packages containing cotton knitled T-shirts liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act and imposing of a fine of Rs.15 lakhs due to non-availability of the goods due to their provisional release and imposing penalties of different amounts upon the applicants, appeals and stay applications were preferred to the Tribunal. Vide order No. C-III/1038 to 1043/WZB/2003 dated 26.6.2003, the Tribunal directed pre-deposit of 50% of the penalties imposed on all the applicants except Smt. Mamta Choudhary, proprietress of M/s.Mamta. Fashions. The applicants moved the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay which, by its order dated 8.9.2003 in Writ Petition No.2057 of 2003, set aside the order directing pre-deposit and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. This is how the applicat...