Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri D.D. Gwalani, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants fairly concedes that the appellants have no merits in the case. However, he contended that the entire demand is time barred as he has been filing classification list from time to time which was clearly within the knowledge of the department. The Addl. Commissioner vide order dated 10.12.99 decided that the Show Cause Notice dated 14 Mar 1999 was time barred. The show cause notice dated 14.6.99 covered the period from October 94 to March 95. Therefore his contention is that since the show cause notice in the present appeal was issued on 14.6.99, this period has to be taken as time barred and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. He also confronted me to page 29 of the paper book being the Order passed by the Addl. Commissioner as mentioned above. However, he submitted that 100% penalty has been imposed on the company and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each has been imposed on Mr. Bhandari and Mr. Ka...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Morakhia Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. M.H. Sheikh, Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that since the goods were not entered in the RG-1 register, the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the same and imposed penalty on the appellants.2. Shri. V.K. Jain, Learned C.A appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in para 3 of the show cause notice it is mentioned that the goods in question were seized from the factory on 8.5.1992. He drew my attention to the statement of Shri. Piyushkaran Shyamkaran Vyas dated 8.5.1992 wherein he has clearly stated that the goods in question were finished in the late mid-night of 07.05.92 and early morning of 08.05.92. He further clarified that the goods in question were not entered in statutory record because he was not able to go to the factory in the next day morning from his residence due to illness of his father. Ld. C.A. also drew my attention to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has clearly recorded that in his opinion th...

Drester Tools Pvt. Ltd., Rajesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT383Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are taken up for disposal with the consent after waiving deposit.2. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner in which he has held that Drester Tools Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of synthetic diamond polishing powder from out of synthetic diamond powder and demanded duty on the diamond polishing powder and imposed penalties on the assessee and its two directors.3. The counsel for the appellant explains that the appellant imported synthetic diamond powder of two kinds - either uncoated or copper coated. It sold copper coated diamond powder in the manner in which it imported into retail pack and did not carry out any activity whatsoever. It utilised substantial portion of the uncoated diamond powder that it imported in the manufacture of such articles as diamond coated grinding wheels etc., or cleared it as such. In either case, it subjected these goods to the process of treatment with caustic soda, and thereafter washing in sulphuric acid. The T...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. F.F.C. Aroma Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. M.H. Sheikh, Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue contends that the invoice wise details pertaining to the assessee as mentioned in the show cause notice does not contain the necessary particulars such as name and address of manufacturer, name and address of Central range, division and jurisdictional collector, mode of transportation and registration etc. It is not possible to verify the calculation keeping in view the provisions of Rule 52A and 57A of the Central Excise Rules read with Notification 15/94 dated 30 Mar 94 and as such the respondents could not be allowed credit.2. Shri D.D. Gwalani, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that necessary details were furnished along with statement pertaining invoice wise giving all the details including registration of the dealer as mentioned in para 3 of the Commissioner's Order. He also submitted that the duty paying character of the goods in not under dispute and there is no allegation with reg...

Sir Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT479Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 5.16 lakhs and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act of Rs. 50,000/-.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has demanded the duty on the medical equipment imported by the applicant by claiming the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 64/88, on the ground that the conditions subject to which the exemption is granted, relating to specified number of free-treatment of inpatients and outpatients, have not been complied with.3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the notice issued to it did not demand payment of duty and therefore there is no basis for the duty. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Forgings v. UOI -2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 in respect of the proposition that a notice must specifically mention the amount of duty demanded, and the basis for the demand. He however brings to our notice an order passed by a bench of Court III in Mumbai of this Tribunal in which in r...

Smt. Laxmibai Nandkumar Patil Vs. Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Poli ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1426

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The petition is filed by the mother of the detenue. Her son was detained by order dated 23.5.2002. The grounds of detention are of the even date and there is no dispute about the service of the detention order within time.3. One C.R. No. 418 of 2002 and two in-camera statements are the basis on which the detention order is clamped. The detention order is challenged by the detenue no number of grounds. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted himself mainly the concerned one ground i.e. total non-application of mind. So far as the reproduction of facts about the C.R. are concerned, he drew out attention to paras 5(a)(i) and 5(a)(ii) in the grounds of detention. He also pointed out that, in fact the victim of the said assault one Nisar Ali Shaikh has lodged a F.I.R. against unknown person giving description of his assailant and the offence came to be registered on t...

Union of India (Uoi) (Through M.B. Suresh, V.V. Vaz, S.K. Sinha and L. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1429; 2005(98)ECC375; 2003(159)ELT132(Bom)

A.B. Palkar, J.1. Both the petitions are being disposed of by common order as issues of law and fact involved are same.2. These petitions are filed by Union of India through officers of Custom whose names are also mentioned in the Petition as Petitioners and one of whom was verified the Petition. Custom officers who are accused in different criminal cases instituted against them by the respondents are also described as Petitioners are public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of I.P.C.3. At the relevant time i.e. in the year 1985-86 Petitioners were working as officer in the Department of Customs and were stationed at the Sahar International Airport, Air Intelligence Unit., The Petitioners 1, 2 and 5 were working as Preventing Officers of the Customs whereas Petitioner No.3 was made of India Customs and Central Excise, Service Group 'A'. Petitioner No.3 was working as Assistant Commissioner of Custom at the relevant time and at present he is working as Member of Indian Customs an...

Sadbuddhi Brahmesh Wagh, Vs. Sheela Mahabaleshwar Wagh (Since Deceased ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR79(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR787

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Appeal under Letters Patent by the original Petitioners seeks to challenge the order and judgment dated 15th October 1997 passed by a Single Judge in a petition under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Petitioners and the Respondents are the heirs of one Shri Vinayakrao Venkatesh Wagh who died intestate on 11th November 1958. One of the sons of this Shri Vinayakrao viz. Mahabaleshwar (since deceased and the predecessor-in-title of Respondents Nos. 1A to 1C herein) filed Suit No. 2794 of 1990 for administration of the estate of late Shri Vinayakrao, wherein all others in the present proceedings *or their predecessors-in-title) being other heirs were joined as Defendants. Consent terms were arrived at in that suit and all the disputes in the said suit between the parties were referred to a sole arbitrator by an order in terms of consent terms in that suit passed on 15th March 1991. The arbitrator gave his award on 16th June 1997. The award of the learned...

Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. a Company Registered and Incorporated Unde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR268(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR579; 2004(1)MhLj1112

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners by the present petition have invoked he provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The contract was entered into on 18th December, 2000. There is no dispute that the contract was entered into at Chennai. There is also no dispute that none of the respondents are residing or having their offices or carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this court. The only argument advanced at the hearing of the petition is that the letter of termination in respect of the subject matter of the contract was issued from Mumbai. There is a clause in the agreement under which it is set out that the Courts in Mumbai alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioners herein that this Court would have jurisdiction to hear, entertain and decide this application relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. : [1971]3SCR314 and A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v....

Bharat M. N(Sic) Vs. Mr. Satish Ashok Sabni(Sic) and National Stock Ex ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR936; 2003(3)ARBLR427(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR257; 2003(4)MhLj259

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. By the present petition the petitioner impugns the award dated October 10, 2001 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The learned Arbitral Tribunal found that there are no written directions issued by the petitioner, but went on to observe as under:-'But my experience is that not bothering to obtain written instructions is a common feature amongst the stock broking community, I shall, therefore, not go into the question of breach of regulations.' 2. The learned Arbitral Tribunal thereafter on the oral evidence of one Mr. Agarwal rejected the case of the petitioner. The case examined by the learned Arbitrator was of friendship between one Jagmohansingh Gujral and the petitioner herein. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner had done transaction on behalf of Gujral. Gujral became liable for the amounts and the petitioner instructed the respondent to adjust the amount payable to him towards the due of Mr. Gujral. The learned Tribuna...