Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Frontier Drilling as Vs. Jagson International Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1037; 2003(3)ARBLR548(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR299

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioners, owners of the drillship and respondents entered into Charter Hire Agreement in respect of the drillship 'Frontier Duchess' on 15th September, 2000. An addendum was added to the Charter Agreement on 6th November, 2000. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and addendum on 7th November, 2000, the respondents issued a letter to the State Bank of Hyderabad, New Delhi giving irrevocable payment instructions in terms of the agreement. On 7th November, 2000, a similar letter was addressed by the respondents to ONGC with whom the respondents have engaged the vessel confirming that the payment instructions should not be altered without the consent of the owners of the drillship. On 13th June, 2002 there is a further addendum by which the charter hire was increased from US $ 14,000 per day to US $ 16,372.77 per day from 1st January, 2002, until 30th April, 2002, and a sum of US $ 15,171.74 per day from 1st May, 2002 till 29th December, 2002. By letter of 23r...

B.E. Billimoria and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Cent ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed against order No. 96/CEX/95 dated 31.12.1995 whereunder the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Pune, confirmed the demand of Rs. 63,56,181/-, ordered confiscation of 78 nos. PSC girders valued at Rs. 3,23,65,884/- under Rules 173Q and 226, allowing them to be redeemed at Rs. 5 lakhs. The order also imposes a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. The main reason for confirming the demand was that the PSC girders were held to be goods and therefore there is no reason why duty on PSC girders should not be held to be exigible having held that the girders were marketable and chargeable to duty.2. The appellant, who is a contractor, entered into two works contracts dated 5.9.1991 and 8.8.1992 with the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as KRCL) for construction of five bridges at various locations in the Ratnagiri District of the State of Maharashtra. The said bridges were meant for railway purposes wherefore the KRCL specified the exact mate...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Pharmacom Remedies (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT934Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture goods on their own behalf as well as on job work basis. The Additional Commissioner held that the credit earned for manufacture on behalf of the loan licensee could not be utilised for payment of duty on the goods manufactured by the appellants.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision holding that the wording of the rule did not give rise to such interpretation. The Revenue in this appeal cites some instructions of the board to the effect that a loan licensee should be treated as a manufacturer in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On this ground it is claimed that the credit taken on behalf of the loan licensee was not permitted to be used for clearance of other goods.3. The respondents were not present. The Revenue was represented by Shri S.V. Parelkar.4. The instructions of the board are not direct opposition to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints & Others and therefore, do not survive. ...

Shri Kantilal B. Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad who has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,40,714/- in respect of consignments of wet dates, dry dates and almonds covered under Bills of Entry dated 25.11.96, 20.1.87 and 25.12.87 imported at Porbandar under proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962.2. The ld.counsel for the appellant raised the preliminary objection that the demand is not sustainable as the show cause notice dated 28.2.91 which culminated in the impugned order did not raise duty demand against the appellant but against Miss Julie Kothari (in respect of import of wet dates) and M/s. Kothari and Kothari, Mumbai which is a partnership firm (in respect of dry dates and almonds).3. On the other hand ld.D.R. draws the attention of the Bench to the finding in the impugned order that it is the appellant who has admitted that he had been importing the goods in his own name and therefore, urges upholding of the demand.4. I have considere...

Procyon Trading and Investment Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad confiscating Motor Tug SCH-3 under Section 111(a), (d) and (f) of the Customs Act, with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and has imposed penalties of Rs. 60,000/- each on the master of the Tug, M/s. Procyon Trading and Investment and its Managing Director. The Tug has been confiscated on the ground that IGM was not filed for import of the Tug. It is contention of the appellants who had also raised the plea before the Adjudicating Authority that the Tug falling under CETA heading 89.04 was exempted from payment of duty in terms of sr. No. 194 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 11/97 Cus dated 1.3.97 and the practice of not filing Bills of Entry for such vessel has been accepted by the department and recognised by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jalyan Udyog reported in 1987 (13) ECR 1140. It is their submission that no finding has been given on the ver...

The Court Receiver, High Court, as Receiver of the Business and Assets ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR873; 2003(5)BomCR501; 2003(27)PTC555(Bom); [2003]45SCL335(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiff for an injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 8 to 11 from infringing the registered trade mark 'Mastaan' by the use of the trade mark 'Mastaan' and for an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling edible oil under the trade mark 'Mastaan' so as to pass-off their goods as edible oil being sold under the trade mark 'Mastaan'. The registered proprietor of the trade mark 'Mastaan' is M/s. Ahmed Oomerbhoy, a partnership firm under dissolution. The plaintiff also seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trade mark 'Postman' of the partnership firm, M/s. Ahmed Oomerbhoy (hereinafter referred to as the 'partnership firm') by the use of the trade mark 'Postiano' and for an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling edible oil under the trade mark 'Postiano' so as to pass off their goods as the edible oil being sold under t...

Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Jayantilal Ambalal Chokshi (P) Ltd. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR54; 2004(163)ELT13(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai has filed this application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of CEGAT, Bombay dismissing the Reference Application filed by the Commissioner under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. This application was admitted on April 17, 2002 by this Court only on Question No. 2, which as proposed by the Commissioner reads as under:'Is it open in law to the Honourable Tribunal to hear an appeal from a person who is not aggrieved person in the eyes of law in terms of Section 129A and grant a prayer / relief on an appeal of the order which does not cause a grievance to that person For the sake of clarification, in the instant case, the applicant before the Honourable Tribunal construed to be aggrieved only with the imposition of the penalty and not with the order relating to the confiscation of seized currency ?'3. The facts relevant for the present application are as follows:The Respondent No. 1 is a co...

Crawford Bayley and Co. and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR112

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a firm of Advocates and Solicitors whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they seek an order from this Court striking down the provisions of Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) on the ground that it is violative of the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They also seek an order setting aside the notice of termination of tenancy dated 17th April 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2 as also a show cause notice dated 3rd October, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioners also claim a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent No. 2 from proceeding with Case No. 3 of 2002 initiated by him against the petitioners under Section 4 of the Act. The facts that are material and relevant for dis...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Premlal S/O. Khatri G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1022; 2004(2)BomCR338; (2003)IILLJ1108Bom; 2003(3)MhLj1025

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Whether the Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement stands replaced by Clause No. 19 of 1985 settlement and by Resolution No. 8856 of the appellant Corporation, or whether the Clause No. 49 of 1956 settlement operates in the field totally different from the one in which Clause 19 of the 1985 settlement operates, are the common questions of law which arise for consideration in all these Letters Patent Appeals and on account of difference of opinion between two Benches of this Court on the said points, the matter had been ordered to be heard finally and decided by the Full Bench and that is how, all these matters were heard by this Bench, and are being disposed of by this judgment.3. The appellant Corporation is the State undertaking and the respondents are the employees of the said Corporation. Apart from State Transport Employees Service Regulations framed Under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation ...

Shah Velji Narsi Kumkum Factory Vs. Municipal Corporation of City

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1037; 2004(1)BomCR186; 2003(4)MhLj322

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. 2. The brief facts are as under :The Plaintiff is registered partnership firm and the Defendant is Municipal Corporation, Amravati. The defendant is empowered to impose compulsory tax under Section 105(1) of the Act. Under the said provisions, the Municipal Council is empowered to levy octroi tax on the articles imported within the limits of Amravati Town. The Plaintiff filed a suit for refund of the amount of octroi tax levied on the goods and also for declaration against the defendant. Schedule I of the Act prescribed the levy of octroi tax on the articles mentioned under the Heading 'Goods and Drugs, Medicines for Human or Animals consumption eating and drinking'. The plaintiff disputed the levy of octroi on the following items; (Goods at Sr. No. 14 Ayurvedic Medicines such as Harda Power and Sr. No. 14(c) Haldi so also the goods described at Sr. No. 25 goods not mentioned elsewhe...