Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Multi Arc India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT238Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation of the second hand machinery that the appellant imported. In determining the value, the Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), provided for depreciation from the original price of the goods when they were manufactured up to 70%. He noted that the instructions contained in the Circular 493/124/86-Cus.VI, dated 19-11-1987 of the Board did not permit depreciation in excess of this percentage, and arrived at the value of Rs. 81.72 lakhs approx. This is questioned in this appeal.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant is that the circular of the Board was issued during the period when the import policy did not permit import of machinery over seven years old. The limit of 70% depreciation is in fact what would be available as depreciation. He says that in the changed situation in which machinery other than seven years old is permitted to be imported, this limit shou...

Tata S.S.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 1,71,082 has been disallowed to the appellants herein on the ground that they availed credit during the period February 1994 to June 1994 on the strength of delivery challan issued by stock yard of M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. According to the Revenue, such delivery challan was not valid duty paying document for the purpose of taking modvat credit.2. I have heard both sides. I find that under Notification No.16/4-CE(NT) dated 30.3.1994, subsidiary gate passes issued by integrated steel plants for crude iron/steel ingots, iron & steel products sold from the duty paid stockyards were prescribed as valid duty paying documents provided that such documents were issued before 1.4.94 and credit was taken on or before 30.6.94. Hence, for the period up to 31.3.94, the documents on the strength of which the appellants took credit were valid and credit taken upto 31.3.94 is admissible. For the period subsequent to 1.4.94, Circular No. 76/76/94-CX dated 8.11.1994 pr...

Ramdas Shriram Chaudhari Vs. Guna Kondu Dhanger,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR518

D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Mr. V. B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun D. Kulkarni, advocate, holding for Mr. C.V. Thombre, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith, by consent of both the parties. 3. This revision is directed against the order dated 1.7.2002 passed by Civil Judge, J.D., Muktinagar, below Exh. 16 in Regular Darkhast No. 15/2001. 4. Facts relevant for the decision of this case, may be briefly stated as under:- The petitioner who is the original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 288/1990 in the court of Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Jalgaon. Decree passed by the trial court is as under:- 'The suit is decreed with costs. Defendants do put the plaintiff in possession of the suit plot No. 192 situated at Uchande, Taluka: Edlabad, District Jalgaon. A Mandatory injunction be and is hereby granted. Defendants are hereby ordered to remove the temporary house on the suit plot within one month from today. If the defendants fail to do so, ...

Mrs. Ameeta Shah, Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR95

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.The challenge:2. The Fishery Survey of India is in the process of constructing a building consisting of a ground floor and four storeys on reclaimed land near Sassoon Dock, Mumbai. The building is situated at a distance of 150 meters from the High Tide Line. The project is sought to be implemented for a Facilities Centre of the Fishery Survey of India ('FSI'). The construction is sought to be impugned, inter alia, by two Associations representing residents interested in preserving ecology and the environment. The contention of the Petitioners before the Court is that the construction is within the prohibition of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification dated 19th February, 1991 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India ('MOEF') and on the ground that it violates the conditions stipulated by the Minist...

Range Forest Officer and anr. Vs. Sahebrao Sampatrao Ningot

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj71

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent though served. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati releasing in favour of the respondent a pair of bullocks and the bullock-cart which were seized by the Forest Officers in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'). The contention of the petitioners is that the said pair of bullocks and a bullock-cart were seized by the Forest Officer under the reasonable belief that a forest offence has been committed by utilising the said bullock-cart and the bullocks for illegal transportation of the wooden logs without obtaining necessary documentation from the forest authorities for the purpose of such transportation.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and perusal of the reco...

Ramesh S/O Ramchandra Neware Vs. Shankar S/O Mahadeo Chefalkar and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR470; 2004(1)CTLJ129(Bom)

1.The second appeal has been filed by the original defendant no.1. The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and the respondent no.2 is the defendant no.2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant nos.1 and 2'FACTS2.The plaintiff filed the suit for possession and damages against the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2, is a corporate body known as Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board, Nagpur. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was working in Pulgaon Cotton Mills Limited, Pulgaon. Similarly, the defendant no.1 was also working in the same mill. The plaintiff applied to the defendant no.2 for the allotment of the suit quarter under the scheme of hire purchase basis. The application was considered and he was allotted the suit quarter No.61 in Pulgaon old colony. It is his specific case that, he was put in possession on 1.12.1976 and he paid an amount of Rs.884/- as per the rules of the defendant no.2. It is the further case of th...

Laxman Wasudeo Nimje Vs. Sunita Laxman Nimje and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1595; I(2004)DMC44

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with and heard by consent of both the parties.2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 18th April, 2002, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No. 2, Nagpur, below Exhibit-12, in Petition No. EP-266/2001, whereby it was directed to issue warrant of attachment of salary of the applicant @ Rs. 2,000/- per month towards amount, and Rs. 2,000/- towards arrears of maintenance amount, amounting total Rs. 4,000/- per month till recovery of Rs. 16,000/- and thereafter Rs. 2,000/- per month.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed petition claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed for default on 27.1.2002. He contended that restoration application has been filed by the non-applicants bearing No. 18/2002, which is pending in the Family Court.4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/husband further contended ...

Swadeshi Detergents Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals 3548 to 3553/02 have been filed by the assessee and others against the Order-in-Original No. 21/Meerut/02 dated 24.5.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut. By this order the assessee Swadeshi Detergent Ltd (Appeal 3548/02) was directed to pay duty of Rs. 19,69,91,673/-. The order also imposes penalty of an equal amount on the assessee, under Section 11AC of the Act. The order also imposes a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the assessee under Rule 173Q (2) of the Central Excise Rules. It imposes penalty of Rs. 1 crore on Godrej Soaps Ltd., Rs. 50 lakhs each on A.B. Godrej, Sudhir Awasthi and Rs. 25 lakhs on Jatinder Gurtu and Rs. 15 lakhs on S.C. Kaul.2. Two Appeals namely E/3474/02 and 3475/02 have been filed by two other appellants namely Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd and Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd against the same order imposing penalty of Rs. 1 crore each on them under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.3. Godr...

Gufic Healthcare Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. N.K. Arora, learned C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellants interalia contended that the Commissioner has ignored the facts that Stretch Nil Lotion is not the general purpose cream for beautifying the skin, hence it is not the cosmetic. The cream is recommended during the course of pregnancy for removing the stretch mark which is the specific ailment prescribed in the ayurvedic books. The Commissioner has fully ignored the CBEC circular guidelines for cosmetic and medicament. He, therefore, submitted that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant in granting waiver of the duty and penalty amount. He also submitted that the demand is time barred as the department was fully aware from the declaration filed by the appellant and as such the extended period can not be invoked.2. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue interalia contended that the product in question is nothing but cosmetic. A cosmetic means any article intended to be ru...

Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT376Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were manufacturing tablewares/kitchenwares of plastic materials. The Central Excise Tariff Heading 39.24 read as under :- "tableware, kitchenware, other house-hold articles and toilet articles, of plastics.3924.19 - Of other plastics 30%3924.90 - Other 30%" 2. Intelligence was received that although, the appellants had declared the manufacture of goods falling under sub-heading 3924.10 only, they were also manufacturing articles falling under sub-heading 3924.90. The articles falling under both sub-headings were taken to their duty paid godown where they were made into sets and sold. The goods falling under subheading 3924.90 were cleared without payment of duty and without any entries being made in the statutory registers. Shri D.B. Vora, Deputy Financial Controller in his statement accepted the manufacture and clearance of such goods without payment of duty. These facts were corroborated by the statements of other employees/officers of the appellants. In the absenc...