Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Ganpathi Overseas and Suresh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by M/s Ganpati Overseas is for waiver of pre-deposit of balance of duty of Rs. 86,09,181/- (out of the total duty of Rs. 1,16,09,181/-, Rs 30.00 lakhs has been deposited) and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the firm, and Rs. 5.00 lakhs imposed on its sole proprietor, and application by Suresh Chandra Sharma is for waiver of pre deposit of penalty of Rs 5.00 lakhs.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground of under valuation of tuners imported by M/s Ganpati Overseas, from Hong Kong.3. The learned counsel Shri Sujay Kantawala first raises the issue regarding lack of jurisdiction on the part of the DRI to issue the show cause notice and to the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority sitting at Mumbai when the show cause notice was made answerable to Commissioner, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. However, he proceeds to argue further without confining himself to the argument on jurisdiction. He submits that the Bills of Entry were initially assessed after enhancing ...

Abhijeet Saraswat Vs. Nalamaty Doraiah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR138(Bom); [2005]128CompCas608(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj145; [2004]50SCL657(Bom)

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act) for setting aside the appellate award dated 4th July, 2003 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai.2. The petitioner is a sub-broker affiliated to the respondent No. 2 who is a broker and member of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. The respondent No. 1, who was the original claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal, was a constituent of the petitioner and was dealing in purchase and sales of shares on the Stock Exchange, Mumbai through the petitioner.3. The respondent No. 1 made the following claims against the petitioner:(i) Rs. 3,47,500 on account of non-delivery of shares.(ii) Rs. 4,30,500 for non-payment of the sales proceeds of the shares sold.(iii) Rs. 7,000 towards the dividend on the shares which were not delivered.(iv) Rs. 30,000 towards the badla charges. (v) Rs. 85,000 interest on the aforesaid amounts.The aforementioned claim...

Dilipkumar Chimanlal Maniar and ors. Vs. Industrial Credit and Develop ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom117; 2004(2)BomCR39; 2004(2)MhLj626

Mohite, J.1. By this Appeal the appellants, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiff's Assignees') seek to quash and set aside the Judgment & Order dated 11-3-1999 (reported in 1999 AIHC 3330) passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on Chamber Summons No. 1758 of 1997 taken out by the original defendants in Suit No. 771 of 1976. By the impugned Judgment & Order, the Chamber summons has been made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c) which are as under :--(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to discharge the Court Receiver High Court Mumbai, who has been appointed Receiver of the properties bearing plot No. 159 and 169 more particularly described in Exhibit 'E' to the plaint since the Consent Decree dated 9-1-80 has become unexecutable being barred by law of limitation and that the Court Receiver be directed to hand over possession of the said properties to the defendants after removal of all the encroachment and illegal construction on the said properties :...

Avinash S/O Pandurang Tarawade and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR913; 2004(2)MhLj511

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present petition to challenge the action of respondent No. 2, the Cantonment Board, Aurangabad, which has imposed a tax styled as 'Vehicle Entry Tax'. The petitioners aver that they are residents of Aurangabad and are engaged in the business of transport. Respondent No. 3 is the Contractor, to whom the contract to collect vehicle Entry Tax has been allotted. Respondent No. 4 is Union of India who, according to the petitioners, has granted sanction to respondent No. 2 to impose the Vehicle Entry Tax. The petitioners are engaged in transport business and use their vehicle for transportation of the employees of various industries situated at Waluj Industrial area from Aurangabad to Waluj and from Waluj to Aurangabad, The vehicles of the petitioners when used for that purpose, are required to use the Aurangabad-Pune Road, which passes through Aurangabad Cantonment Area, Aurangabad. The respondent No. 2 Cantonment Board had issued draft noti...

Shailaja A. Sawant (Dr.) Vs. Sayajirao Ganpatrao Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR548; 2004(2)MhLj419

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions, waive service. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.3. This batch of writ petitions basically challenges the orders passed by the trial Court either allowing the defendant to file the written statement after the period prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') or disallowing the defendant from doing so on the ground that it was not presented within such period. The question, therefore, that falls for my consideration in these writ petitions is whether after the 2002 amendment to Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code upon expiry of a period of 90 days from the service of the writ of summons upon the defendant, the defendant is wholly and absolutely barred from filing his written statement. In other words, whether the defendant cannot,...

Zaheer Khan Vs. Percept D' Mark (India) Private Limited and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom362; 2004(2)ALLMR369; IV(2004)BC181; (2006)3CompLJ253(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. These two appeals were heard finally at the stage of admission by the consent of the learned Advocate General and the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and as both the appeals arise out of common judgment dated 10th December, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge, we are disposing of these appeals by this common order.2. We may also notice at the outset that though by the impugned order the learned Judge has granted an ad-interim relief in the arbitration petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act of 1996'), when the matter came up before us on 17th December 2003, the learned Advocate General and the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties agreed that by the impugned order the arbitration petition itself may be deemed to have been finally disposed of. In our order dated 17th December we also noted the statement of the learned senior counsel for the appellant in appeal No. 1109/2003 that th...

Suryakanta W/O Rahul Shirsat and ors. Vs. Rahul S/O Gopalrao Shirsat a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC199; 2004(3)MhLj985

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of parties.2. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-11-2002 passed by the Joint District Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2001 reversing the order dated 22-11-1999 passed below exhibit 15 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 146 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot.3. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of respondent No. 1 and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are their children. The petitioners had filed application under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Magistrate for enhancement of maintenance allowance granted to them. The said application remained without signature of petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, she filed application (exhibit 15) before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to put her thumb impression on the application filed under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent No. 1 opposed the application on the ground that there is no provision to sig...

Sophisticated Marble and Granite Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT353Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner of Customs determining the unit price of Rough Marble Blocks of Iranian original imported by the applicant herein @ US $ 303 PMT, ordering confiscation of goods imported with option to redeem the same on payment of Rs 17,50,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- we proceed to take up the appeal itself for hearing after granting the prayer for stay, as we find that the issue viz., the quantum of fine and penalty required to be imposed on such import has already been decided by the Tribunal in a series of cases.2. The goods in question, which the appellant states to be of Iranian origin, were imported under bill of entry dated 11/02/2003 wherein the CIF value per unit was declared as US $ 298.83 PMT. The value of the goods were loaded to US $ 303 PMT and the goods confiscated with option to redeem on payment of fine and payment of penalty as above. The appellant's p...

National Plastics (i) Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On 13.07.1999 a show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to confiscate goods stored outside bonded store room, though they were entered in Daily Stock Account RG1 and tallied with the physical stock. There was proposal to impose penalties on the appellants.2. a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II adjudicated upon the issues raised. He ordered as under - i) Confiscated seized goods valued at Rs. 5,03,39,601/-under Rule 226 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and ordered appropriation of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs towards fine in lieu of confiscation. iii) Imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant Mr. Paresh Parekh, Director under Rule 209A. i) Confiscation of goods is not warranted since there was no contravention of provisions of Rule 226 as held. ii) IF at all there was any contravention it was of Rule 47 for which penalty could have been imposed under Rule 210. Confiscation is without the authority of law, since no confiscation on LC arrived at...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Ganpaty Alloys and Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT100Tri(Mum.)bai

2. I note that, the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error, in holding that the delay in making payment of determined amount under the KVSS Scheme 1998, was of a technical nature. It has been correctly contended by the Revenue, that without the issue of a settlement certificate under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 1998, no conclusion could be drawn to the effect that the case was settled under the KVSS Scheme.Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to assume the role of designated authority to condone the delay. Whereas, under the scheme itself even the designated authority did not have such discretion to condone the delay. Consequently, the impugned order is held as not sustainable and the same is set aside. The Revenue appeals are accordingly allowed....