Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

A.S. Moloobhoy and Sons, DolphIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the exemption contained in entry 227 of the table to notification 23/98 of the goods imported by A.S. Moloobhoy & Sons and Dolphin Offshore Enterprises. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held that the goods were not entitled to the exemption and confirmed the demand for duty issued to the importer and imposed a penalty on the importer and employees in the case of Kripal Singh, director of Dolphin. The appeals are by the importers and Kripal Singh.2. The goods under consideration consist of components of Global Maritime Distress and Safety Systems (GMDSS) and of emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBS). Each of the importer was engaged in repairs of ships. In order for it to comply with its operations under the International Convention for the Safety Life at sea to which India is a signatory, the government of India issued in exercise of its powers under 290 of the M...

The Design Point Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep), Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for early hearing of above appeal is allowed in view of the submission made before us by the applicant/respondent that even in respect of consignments already exported for identical goods claimed to be printed books, the Revenue is refused the DEPB benefit and in view of the submission that non-allowance of DEPB is causing financial hardship to the applicant....

Goenka Veneers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 16/12/1995, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise Nagpur visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who commenced manufacture of different varieties of plywood and flush doors in March 1995 and found stock of excisable goods in excess of the recorded balance in statutory records. The excess stock being found to be offending goods and liable to confiscation, they were seized. The statement of the General Manager of the appellants' company was recorded on the same date, wherein he admitted the guilt and requested for lenient view on the ground that appellant was a new suit, which was not fully conversant with the Central Excise law. The statement of the Director of the appellant's company was recorded on 03/01/96 in which he stated that the goods seized were semi finished goods and had not reached the stage of entry in the RG-1 register. Regarding clandestine removal of 41 pieces of plywood on 21/07/95, he stated that they did no...

J.K.B.M. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, represented by Shri. J.C. Patel, learned Advocate and Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R., we find that the duty has been confirmed against the appellants by disallowing the deduction on account of service charges, transport charges and handling charges claimed by the appellants from their depot sale price.2. Shri Patel submits that transportation charges and handling charges are admissible deductions in view of the fact that they are post clearance expenses. He also submits that the demand of duty is barred by limitation inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice for the period April 1994 to September 1995 was issued on 04/02/1997.3. He draws our attention to the Show Cause Notice and submits that it is admitted by the Revenue that the appellants had filed the price list claiming the said deduction and the requisite return alongwith the invoice were being filed by the appellants to their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. In fact, Show Cause Notice proceed on...

Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT777Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By orders passed on 18.4.2002, the Commissioner of Central Excise.Aurangabad denied the credit availed by the assessee under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on capital goods under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and thus contravened the express provisions of Rule 57T the Commissioner also imposed penalty. The assessee appealed this order to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its orders passed on 14.8.01 disposing of the appeal, had noted the contentions of the assessee that although, in the return filed by it before the income tax authorities, it had claimed depreciation, it had revised the return in which while calculating the value of the capital goods for the purpose of assessment of income tax it had excluded the element of duty which it had taken on its credit. These returns having been accepted by the department, had been final. No depreciation had thus been claimed. It had also recorded the claim that consequent upon the amendment made to the definition of the term "capital cost" ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Charisma Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has come in this appeal. The short issue to be decided is whether stoppers, lids and caps for Nail polish and Lipstick containers would be requiring an import licence or are freely importable without a licence, by an actual user which the importers are in this case.2. The lower authority has held that the subject goods imported goods were permitted for imports without a licence following the decision in the case of T.C. Healthcare. On the question from the Bench, the learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that decision was final as the same has not been appealed against by Revenue.3. The learned D.R. on the other hand contends that after the introduction of ITC (HC) Classification Policy, the order in the case of M/s. T.C. Health Care would not be applicable. There was a specific mention in this policy against tariff heading No. 39235000.10 which reads as follows:- He further submitted that their import as held by Commissioner, would not be freely made. The goods sho...

Shri Mulraj Jayantilal Sheth Vs. the Governor, Reserve Bank of India a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom318; 2003(3)ALLMR406; I(2004)BC43; 2003(6)BomCR82; 2003(4)MhLj44; [2004]50SCL97(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Petitioner is a senior citizen. In this writ petition his prayer is for issuance of writ of mandamus or order or direction to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Government of India to ensure that the banks revise their paltry 4% or 4.5% interest rates and pay at least 12% interest on the deposits. The petitioner also prays that the said respondents be refrained from penalising the deposits when they cannot maintain bank's self-determined minimum balance. The aforesaid prayers are sought in view that RBI is regulatory authority for the banks under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and it has authority to decide interest rates and banking policy in the interest of public and depositors.2. Mr. M.B. Kotak, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously and vehemently argued before us that the social welfare is the constitutional duty of the State. In India no welfare work is done for aged except retiring them from work and making them dependent upon...

Baburao Sidhu Jadhav (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR899; 2003(6)BomCR78; 2003(3)MhLj527

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. R.M. Patne, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in Writ Petition No. 7476 of 2002. Mr. H.G. Wakshe, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Applicants in the Civil Application No. 641 of 2003.2. In the facts and circumstances, both the matters have been taken up for final hearing forthwith.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. In these the petitions, two actions have been challenged by the petitioners; (i) Legality and validity of Circular dated 19th September, 2002 issued by the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra, and (ii) Individual orders passed against the petitioners.5. So far as the circular is concerned, it lays down procedure for closure of country liquor (foreign liquor) licences in ...

Smt. Kuwarben Chhabildas Patel Through Her C.A. Pratapsingh Chhabildas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR662; 2003(5)BomCR44; 2003(3)MhLj948

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is whether the Slum Tribunal can review its own order when there are no specific powers of review conferred upon it. The Tribunal has reviewed its earlier order which set aside the order of the Competent Authority declaring the area a slum. As a result of the order being reviewed, it was declared that Notification dated 30th October 1996 pertaining to the property bearing C.T.S. No. 719, 719/1 to 7 and 720, 720/1 to 16 of Village Andheri, Taluka Andheri M.S.D. Mumbai declaring it a slum was valid.2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as follows:The Petitioner's husband was the lessee of land bearing C.T.S. No. 719, 719/1 to 7, 720 and 720/1 to 16 situate at Village Andheri, Taluka Andheri, B.S.D., Mumbai and was the owner of the chawl constructed by him thereon. This chawl was occupied by tenants who, according to the Petitioner, had not paid rent for a long period of time. Suit were, therefore, institu...

Mrs. Sheila Mahendra Thakkar Widow of Late Shri Mahendra Naranji Thakk ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR491; 2003(27)PTC501(Bom); [2003]47SCL290(Bom)

A.P. Shah, J.1. Appellant in this appeal is defendant in Suit No. 2162 of 1992 and assails the order dated April 12, 1994 of Jhunjhunuwala J. granting an interlocutory injunction restraining appellant from infringing respondents' registered trade mark 'Vandevi' for 9 qualities as mentioned in Schedule II of Deed of Dissolution dated September 9, 1991 and from manufacturing 10 qualities instead of 9 qualities as mentioned in Schedule I of Deed of Dissolution including quality of Vandevi Superfine Powder containing ingredient approximately 73% rice flour, edible gum, Asafoetida which in fact is Vandevi Yellow Powder and from selling two different qualities under the label of Vandevi Superfine Powder so as to pass-off appellant's goods as and for respondent's goods. The respondent is plaintiff. The appellant and respondent are brothers. They along with their mother Maniben Thakkar were carrying on business of manufacturing, selling and dealing in different qualities of compounded Asafoeti...