Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Zenith Computers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR473; 2004(164)ELT24(Bom)

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the records. The Petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Respondents rejecting their applications claiming refund in the nature of drawback.2. The Petitioners carry on the business of manufacturing computers and peripherals in their factory at 29 M.I.D.C., Industrial Estate, Central Road, Andheri (West) Bombay. The Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the said company.3. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are one of the leading Computer manufacturers in India and during September, 1989 they were flooded with a series of export orders mainly from USSR. The first Petitioners did not have any experienced person or an Export Department to handle these export orders and particularly the post-shipment formalities and, therefore, they appointed a Senior Export Manager in October, 1989 for handling all such procedural work. However, the said officer left the services of the first Petitioner-Company o...

Baburao S/O Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs. Maharashtra Insecticides Limited and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj717

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Haq, the learned counsel for the respondents.2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.3. This petition is directed against the order dated 26-3-2003 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola by which the plaintiff's application for amendment is rejected.4. Mr. Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola was not entitled to reject the application only on the ground the case was already closed for judgment. He submits that in view of Order VI, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure an amendment can be allowed at any stage of suit.5. Mr. Haq, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes this contention on the ground that the wordings empowering a Court to amend pleadings 'at any stage of the proceedings' do not apply to the situation where the suit has been heard and reserved for judgment. He relies o...

Globe Enterprises Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR634; 2004(3)BomCR53; 2004(2)MhLj645

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order in original passed by the Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva on 20th December, 1990 wherein a consignment of Poppy Seeds imported by the Petitioners have been confiscated and the Petitioners were permitted to redeem the said goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The Petitioners had imported 44,730 Kgs. of Poppy Seeds from Hongkong at the rate of Rs. 6/- per Kg. The Petitioners sought clearance of the said goods under the REP licence acquired by them. Under the said REP licence, the Petitioners were entitled to import the 'seeds of vegetable/flowers (excluding oil seeds and dry fruits)'.3. By a show cause notice dated 21-3-1990 the Assistant Collector of Customs called upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why the said goods should not be confiscated, inter alia on the ground that the imported goods being in the nature of consumer goods of agricultural origina...

Kashinath Chindhuji Shastri Vs. Haribhau Nathuji Bawanthade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR40; 2004(2)MhLj722

S.T. Kharche, J.1.Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-12-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Achalpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1996 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12-7-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Achalpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 431 of 1992 by which the suit was partly decreed and the appellant/defendant was directed to deliver the possession of 4 gunthas of land which is said to be under encroachment as shown in the measurement map (Ex.25) drawn by the surveyor.3. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 5/1-B is owned by the plaintiff whereas agricultural land bearing Survey No. 5/1 is owned by the defendant. He further contended that the appellate Court clearly recorded a finding that there is no dispute between the parties as regards the area of the land respe...

Pride of Asia Films Vs. Essel Vision

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR169(Bom); 2004(5)BomCR870

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This Chamber Summons is to set aside a warrant of attachment of 29th May, 2003 issued in an execution proceeding arising out of what is purported to be an Arbitral Award dated 6th September, 2002. The applicant seeks a declaration that there is no executable decree or decree on Award in favour of the complainant under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. In order to appreciate the submissions which have been urged before the Court, it would be necessary to advert to the relevant facts. The claimant in the Arbitral proceeding is the complainant while the applicant in support of the Chamber Summons is the party against whom purportedly an Award is passed.3. On 29th March, 1993, a Deed of Assignment was entered into between the applicant and the complainant by which the complainant assigned certain rights in respect of two. films in favour of the applicant. On 5th November, 2001, the complainant lodged a claim before the Film Makers Combine (FMC) seeking to...

Shayona Petrochem Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the condonation of delay application was called no appearance was caused on behalf of the appellant. Heard the DR and considering the material it is found :- a) There is an abnormal delay of one year and three months or so in filing the appeal. i) There was a strike of the workers from 10/03/02 to 22/08/2003 when no representative of the workers was allowed to enter the factory due to lack of security in the factory at a remote location. ii) Workers had destroyed property and most of the records in the factory to effect the compliance by the company resulting in delays in filing sales tax, Income tax and other returns and staff were busy in building up records. iii) Complaints were filed by business rivals with OBJ, which caused raids and enquiries. iv) Change in management. The order received in the factory on 10/04/2002 come to notice only in September 2003. c) The grounds to explain the delay should not be sufficient but each day's delay has to explain satisfactorily. The a...

Nirmala Dyechem and Shri Naresh B. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the precondition of deposit of duty of Rs. 74,39,895/- and penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon the second applicants, who is a Managing partner of the first appellant company, confirmed against the appellant for the period 1.10.1997 to 31.10.2000 along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under the provisions of Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules. The show cause notice has been issued on 1.5.2001. The above demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant's product Domex cleaner is properly classifiable under heading 3402.90 as cleaning preparations as against the appellants claim for classification under heading 3808.90 as a Disinfectant preparations. Shri C.S. Lodha learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant, assails the impugned order on merits as also on the point of limitation. As regards merits, he submits that the issue is covered by earlier decision of the Tr...

Hico Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT469Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri.V.S. Nankani and Shri. Naresh Thakker, learned Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants. The issue involved in the present case is as to whether the transferee of the Value Based Advance Licence would be eligible for the duty free import, irrespective of the fact whether the original licence holder has fulfilled the export obligation and availed the credit. In other words, whether non compliance of condition (v) of the Notification 203/92-CUS dated 19.05.1992 would not stand in the way of the transferee to avail the benefit of duty free import under the licence as per condition (vii) of the said Notification. For the purpose of reference conditions (v) and (vii) are reproduced as under:- (v) that the export obligation is discharged, within the period specified in the said certificate or within such extended period as may be granted by the Licensing Authority, by exporting goods manufactured in India in respect of which - (a) no input stage credit is obtained under Rule 5...

Prima Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT746Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are manufacturer of Pneumatic and Electric Actuators classifiable under heading 8412 of the Central Excise Tariff. In some of the cases their customer want to mount actuators on the ball valves, which are supplied by them to the appellant. The department's case is that the value of the said ball valves supplied by their customer is required to be added in the assessable value of the actuator. On the other hand the appellants contention is that they are selling actuator in most of the cases without the ball valves and that the same are independent items and valve is not a part of actuator. On proceedings being initiated against them, the Additional Commissioner dropped the demand vide his order-in-original dt. 31.2.99. While adjudicating the show cause notice he observe as under:- I have considered the submissions made. The question for ...

Mukand Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai

Heard both sides. The Modvat credit has been denied in respect of Saw blades used for drawing samples before blooms are taken for further processing. The reason for such denial is that such blades are not directly used for manufacturing of final products. However, the phrase 'direct use' does not appear anywhere in Rule 57Q. In view of the fact that testing of the raw material is part of the manufacturing process which is necessary to determine its suitability for further processing, the appellants cannot be denied credit. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....