Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Golden Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Head both sides. The appellants took modvat credit at the rate of 15% for the period January 1998 to January 1999 which was equal to the duty actually paid. However, Notification No. 14/97-CE(N.T.) dtd.03/05/1997 amended notification NO. 5/94 dtd.01/03/1994 restricting the modvat credit to 10%. After this was pointed out to the appellants, they reversed the excess credit of 28,31,394/- taken by them earlier.Such reversal took place on 05/10/1999. The impugned order in original takes note of the fact that after the mistake was pointed out the appellants promptly reversed the credit and therefore imposes a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs only. The impugned order in appeal takes note of the same and concludes that the quantum of penalty is reasonable considering the financial advantage taken by the appellants on account of availment of undue excess credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has, therefore, upheld the order in original.2. Initially, the appellants had filed the present appeal before th...

J.i. Gandhi Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT195Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Each of these applicants, filed an appeal before this Tribunal on 31-1-2002 against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, demanding duty of Rs. 86 lakhs approx, imposing equal penalty on the assessee, and imposing, inter alia, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Hariharbhai J. Gandhi, its director. We are not concerned with other persons against whom this order has been passed.2. By an order passed on 7-6-2002, the Tribunal directed deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs by the assessee noting that Rs. 20 lakhs has already been paid. The Tribunal did not, evidently by inadvertence, pass orders on the stay application filed by Hariharbhai Gandhi, 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 32PA(2) of the Act permits any person who has filed an appeal on to the Tribunal on or before 20th February, 2000 which was still pending to withdraw the appeal from the Tribunal and to file an application to the Settlement Commission to have his case settled. Subsequently, both the assessee and its director sought f...

Standard Batteries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC211

1. Ms. Deepa Chawan, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants manufacture underwater batteries exclusively usable in the submarines of Russian make. As such, they have supplied the batteries only to Indian Navy and to Algerian Navy. She states that the supply to Indian Navy is exempted under Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16.3.1995. As far as the export to Algerian Navy is concerned, such export is not dutiable. Under modvat rules in force at the relevant time, no credit of duty paid on inputs used in exempted product is available whereas input duty credit in respect of exported product is available. In this case, the appellants had made one battery for supply to the Algerian Navy for which they had taken input duty credit in R.G. 23A. However, this battery was not exported due to cancellation of the order and the same was supplied to the Indian Navy which urgently required such a battery. The input duty credit in respect of this battery was not utiliz...

Mrs. Suprabha Bhupesh Sen Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Se ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)87; 2003BomCR(Cri)1412; 2003CriLJ3502; 2003(4)MhLj450

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The petitioner is detained under COFEPOSAAct by the detention order dated 11.3.2002. In thegrounds of detention, it is stated that thepetitioner was intercepted by the Air IntelligenceUnit of Customs Department on 1.9.2001 when she wasgoing abroad to Dubai by AI 845 flight. Afterimmigration and customs clearance. It was found thatthe petitioner was carrying an amount ofRs. 5,58,500/- concealed in the cavities made in thesandals worn by her and in the hand baggage. Herstatement was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Acton the same day and thereafter the order ofdetention was clamped upon her. The detentionauthority also noted n the aforesaid statement ofthe petitioner that, on earlier occasion also in theyear 1998 she was caught by the CustomsCommissionerate for attempting to smuggle Rs. 7 lacsworth Indian currency on the way to Dubai and shewas released from the matter as a speci...

Manmohan Muttappa Attavar, Vs. Harendra Sakarlal Parikh,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR98; 2003(6)BomCR423

R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The order dated September 18, 1996 passed in Short Cause Suit No. 4419 of 1993 by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, city Civil Court, Bombay is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Revision Application. By the judgment under challenge the learned Judge on the preliminary issues, held that he has pecuniary jurisdiction as also the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.2. The relevant and necessary facts are as under:-Present Petitioners are original defendant Nos. 1, 5, 9, 10 and 11 respectively, Respondent No. 1 Harendra S. Parikh is the original plaintiff whereas rest of the Respondents are original defendant Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8 respectively.3. Respondent No. 1, plaintiff and original defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 9, 10 and 11 on the basis of Deed of Partnership were engaged into a trade under the name and style as 'Indo American Exports' having its head office at Bangalore.The nature of the business being cultivation and dealing in agricultura...

Mr. (Sic)qassim Mohd. Yousuf Aquil Bastaki Vs. Smt. Sultana Abdul Ahad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR915; 2003(3)ARBLR75(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR807; 2003(3)MhLj373

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Heard both the parties.2. The Petitioners have filed the present Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. it is the contention of the Petitioners that they are a registered partnership firm, which is at Will. The Petitioners have dissolved the partnership by their counsel's letter dated 7th October, 2002. Once the partnership is at Will and has been dissolved, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court to protect the property of the partnership firm, the Court should appoint Receiver for the partnership's assets. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has drawn my attention to the documents on record and the averments made in the Petition.3. On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondents, learned counsel contends that this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. It is contended that the Petitioners claims to be partners alongwith Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, now transposed as Responden...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Ranjit S/O Megharaj Bhillam

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)103; 2003BomCR(Cri)1626; 2003(4)MhLj679

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State andShri Daga, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure('the Code' for short) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21st August,2002 passed below Ex. 27 in Sessions Trial No. 94/2001 passed by the 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who rejected the application filed by theprosecution seeking permission for medical examination of the accused fordeciding the paternity of the child. 4. Brief facts are as under:-- The non-applicant accused is facing prosecution for the offencespunishable under Sections 376, 417 of Indian Penal Code. During the course ofinvestigation, sample of blood of the non-applicant-accused as well as that of the complainant and the child was sent to Chemical Analyzer, Mumbai and reportshave already been received, which are filed along with the charge-shee...

Jagmohan Singh Gujral Vs. Satish Ashok Sabnis and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR488; 2004(1)ARBLR212(Bom); 2004(1)BomCR307

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was the respondent and respondent No. 1, was the applicant before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral proceedings commenced at the instance of respondent No. 1 by his application dated 7th December, 2000 which was received in the office of respondent No. 2 on 8th December, 2000. The case of respondent No. 1 was that, on the 1st day of settlement No. 42 i.e. on 20th October, 1999 the petitioner built up a huge position and purchased shares worth Rs. 1.91 crores. Respondent No. 1 came to know about this position on the evening of 20th October, 1999 whereupon they promptly contacted the petitioner and informed him about his huge position. The case of respondent No. 1 was that the petitioner assured respondent No. 1 that he would reduce the position first thing in the morning of Thursday. To doubly confirm the same, respondent No. 1 personally went to the camp office where he found that Mr. Nagori was sitting in front of the terminal doing trading. Respond...

Laxmi Vidya Mandal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR229; 2003(6)BomCR293

Kanade V.M., J.1. The petitioner is a Public Trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The said trust is an Educational Trust and it has established and is administering one Educational Institution viz. Laxmi Vidyalaya which has a Secondary school from 5th to 10th standard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is seeking appropriate writ, order and direction from this Court directing respondents to permit the petitioner to close the said school with effect from the academic year 1999-2000 and further direct respondents 1 to 4 to absorb respondents 5 to 17 in some other school which is receiving grant-in-aid. The petitioner is also seeking a direction that respondents 1 to 4 may be directed to pay salary of respondents 5 to 17 from August, 1997 till they are absorbed in another school.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the petition, are as follows:That the petitioner school was started ...

Astt. Cit Vs. Omprakash and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)183

ORDERBeharilal, A.M.The departmental appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 has been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 16-11-1995. The departmental appeal and the cross-appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 have been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central IV, Mumbai, dated 17-2-1997. One consolidated order is being passed for the sake of brevity and convenience; as the issues involved in these appeals are common.2. The assessee is a partnership-firm engaged in the wholesale business of dry fruit and business in real estate comprising of construction of buildings of residential flats, office premises, shops, godowns, row houses, etc. which are sold to prospective buyers. For both the divisions of business the assessee maintains one set of account books. For the construction division, the assessee has adopted estimation of profit on work-in-progress and on that basis profit is estimated every year showi...