Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Premraj Industries 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. 20.2 lakhs.The duty has been demanded on the ground that the goods that the applicant manufactured were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 8/01 after its amendment on 1.3.2002 (which provides exemption for small scale industries).2. By the amendment made on this date goods of chapter 93 were excluded from the purview of the notification. The goods that we are concerned with are described as part of primer, igniter etc. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that primers, igniters etc are goods classifiable in heading 36.03 of the tariff and not in chapter 93 and that therefore the amendment made to the notification will not have any consequence.3. The matter however does not appear to be not simple. Prior to the amendment being made, the applicant had itself classified the goods as parts in hearing 93.05 which is for bombs, grenades and parts thereof.The applicant's present case ...

Raja Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT315Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by Raja Industries against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, communicating to the assessee his view that he cannot reconsider the refusal to accept the declaration dated 31-1-1999 filed by the appellant under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. On our prima facie view that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, we had issued notice to the assessee, while the appeal was dismissed on this ground, the appellant had not replied nor represented.3. The provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 a declaration filed under which this appeal relates, do not form part of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Customs Act, 1962 or any of the rules made thereunder, deriving their authority from the provisions of the Finance Act, 1998. There is no provision i...

Kantilal Manilal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT865Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1,75,577/-, and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the ground that Rovimix B2 80 SD imported by the applicant is classifiable in heading 29.36 of the Customs Tariff and not as claimed in heading 23.02.3. The product consists of vitamin B2 80% the remaining 20% being dextrin. It is the contention of the applicant that dextrin is used as a carrier in order to ensure proper dispersal in the animal feed supplement to which it is to be added. It is therefore correctly classifiable as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding in the heading that it claimed.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) does not appear to have gone into the merits of the issue. He only says that the applicant, despite being given an opportunity has not produced any material in support of its claim. In his earlier order passed on 10.4.2002, the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authorit...

D'Mello and Co. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1043Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the classification of fibre glass sleevings that the appellant manufactured. The Commissioner has found that the appellant did not appear before him the date on which the hearing was fixed and he dismissed the appeal (except for releasing the penalty) because the appellant has not controverted the findings in the stay order.3. It does not need any great explanation or authority to say that the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals) did not finally determine any issue. The opinion recorded in it has necessarily to be prima facie. If it was not so, any authority that passes stay order would be restrained from hearing the matter finally because it has already expressed a final opinion on the issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore fallen into error by dismissing the appeal only on the ground that his finding in his stay order has not been challenged. His order does not deal with the merits at all. It is therefore t...

Vishwanath S/O Tulshiram Dhande Vs. Murlidhar S/O Rambhau Dhande,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR416

D.S. Zoting, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. The revision is preferred against the order of rejection of the application for amendment. The impugned order is in the nature of interlocutory order and therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 contended that the revision is not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in a case of Rajabhau V/s Dinkar : (2001)1BOMLR87 and Nagorao V/s Narayan : AIR2003Bom178 , in which it is held that a revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a case of Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani V/s Vinodkumar K. Shah : 2003(3)BomCR231 , contended that the revision has not become infructuous. In the said case it is held that amendment of written statement which was filed prior to 1.7.2002 is not affected by insertion of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Civi...

Mahendra Chunilal Mehta and anr. Vs. Rajendra Chunilal Mehta and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom350; 2003(3)ALLMR419; 2003(3)BomCR849; 2003(3)MhLj895

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this Chamber Summons the applicants are seeking to challenge the order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the Taxing Master. There is delay of only one day. Affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons has set out sufficient cause for one day's delay. That averment has gone uncontroverted. In the circumstances, delay of one day is condoned.2. The applicants and opponents were party to Suit No. 2502 of 1988 in which consent terms came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 and 5. Learned Single Judge of this Court on 4.3.2002 took the consent terms on record and decreed the suit in terms of the consent terms against defendant Nos. 4 and 5 without prejudice to the rights of other defendants. It is relevant to note that the applicants in this Chamber Summons are defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in that suit. The applicants carried the matter in Appeal against the Order dated 4.3.2002 being Appeal No. 678 of 2002. In the appeal it is clearly mentioned that t...

Hari Narayan Khedkar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Pandurang Through L.Rs. D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR427; 2003(4)MhLj277

1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the original defendants. The original plaintiffs filed a suit for partition in respect of an area admeasuring 2 acres and 7 gunthas which was in possession of the appellant defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 are the real brothers whereas defendant No. 2 was the proposed purchaser of the suit land. On 15-2-1968 there was a partition whereby three brothers and Narayan each were allotted 1/4th share in respect of the total property as well each one was in possession of 3 acres and 7 gunthas. 2. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Narayan disposed of one acre land to the appellant/defendant No. 1 during his life time. Remaining land admeasuring 2 acres and 7 gunthas remained in possession of Narayan till his death. The original plaintiff, respondent No. 1 herein Pandurang and brother vithal after the death of Narayan claimed 1/3rd share in the said 2 acres and 7 gunthas land. Accordingly, t...

Jaysinh Morarji Popat and anr. Vs. Gulabben Hansraj Dedhia and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR665; 2003(6)BomCR206; 2003(4)MhLj795

D. K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this Appeal, appellants challenge the order dated 6/7th April, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WritPetition No. 1987 of 1988. That Writ Petition was filed by the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this Appeal are that the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) are the legal representatives of the deceased Shri Hansraj Dedhia, who expired on 29th May, 1988, respondent No. 1, Gulabben Hansraj Dedhia is the widow, whereas respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons.The deceased Hansraj Dedhia was the tenant of flat No. 4 on the second floor of the building known as 'Shakti Nivas'. That building was owned by one Manghibai Morarji Narsi, who was also residing in that building. The said landlady Manghibai has expired and has left behind a Will, which has been probated. Under that Will, income from the building is to be utilised for the maintenance o...

The Collector Vs. Sadya S/O Sakharam Bawane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR414

V.M. Kanade, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the original non-applicant Collector, Wardha challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Wardha who allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and directed the appellant to pay additional compensation of Rs.23,654/- with future interest at the rate of 9 % per annum.2. Brief facts are as follows : That, the applicants land kh.no.105/2, admeasuring 10.49 acres, situated at village Masod, Tahsil-Arvi, District-Wardha had been acquired for the public purpose by the Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Wardha for the construction of Dham Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award granting compensation to the applicant to the tune of Rs.10,677.39 and Award was published on 28th March, 1978. The appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Court and sought enhancement of the compensation to ...

Haryana Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The letter dated 3.6.99 addressed to M/s. Haryana Steel Company, 503 Steel Centre, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai 400 009 referred to letter by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs. Its letter dated 15.2.99 related to ship m.v. Eastern Pioneer by bill of entry 8688 dated 20.6.83 and writ petition No. 7/83. It had advised the assessment with regard to the goods that had been finalised and payment of duty. The appellant before us appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals). It contended that the import of the ship had been made, and writ petition relating to duty leviable on the ship was filed before the Bombay High Court not by it but by Haryana Steel Company (Delhi) which had been located at the same premises of the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) called for the records to the concerned officer from the customs and after that concluded the appellant before him had filed a bill of entry and filed a writ petition relating to the clearance of the goods. He also said that the conte...