Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Bee International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,00,146/-, Ld. Counsel for the applicant Shri V. Sridharan submits that the adjudicating authority had confirmed the above mentioned duty payment on photocopier machines cleared by the applicant a 100% EOU to M/s. Indo German Social Service Society, categorizing the clearances under "deemed export" and effect the clearances without indicating the correct assessable value of the goods and without payment of duty by the applicants. The demand was raised by applying the extended period of limitation. The applicant filed an appeal alongwith an application for waiver in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed pre-deposit of the entire amount and the applicant applied for modification of stay order, which application was also dismissed and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction. The plea of the applicant is...

D.N. Ghadge, Auto Field Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 36,10,819/- confirmed against M/s. Autofiled Engineers Pvt Ltd., and penalty of equal amounts as well as the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed on its Material Manager and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on the Chairman of the Company and proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides, on the plea of the appellants that the orders suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice.2. The issue in dispute is as to whether all semi finished engine valves and finished engine valves cleared by the appellants herein to M/s. Auto Parts Inc., Kanpur, were cleared on job work basis in terms of Notification No. 214/86/CE dated 25/3/86 as claimed, or the goods were manufactured and cleared without payment of duty under the guise of job work.3. On hearing both sides, we find that the contention raised before us that two pieces of evidence relied upon the adjudicating author...

Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,90,22,405/- confirmed on the ground inter-alia that export documents submitted by the appellants herein, who are Merchant Exporter did not constitute the proof of export in respect of removal of sugar from M/s. S.M.S.M.P. SSK Ltd., and M/s.Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., and that proof of export in respect of removal of sugar from M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., and M/s. Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd., Kolhapur, was not filed and penalty of amount equal to duty, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein had executed B-1 Bond dated 11/06/2001 with the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer for removal of sugar without payment of duty for e...

Sudarshan Tex Port Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After allowing the application for early hearing, we proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides as the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. The appellants herein are found to have contravened the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(1), (2) and (3) read with Rule 173G(1) and Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules with intention to evade payment of duty inasmuch as they had failed to pay the duty payable for the month of April, 2000 under the provisions of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 on the due date in the month of April, 2000 as required under the Rule 96ZQ of the Rules. The lower appellate authority has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 10 lakhs @ Rs. 2 lakhs per chamber per month (there are 5 chambers in the Hot Air Stenter) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The appellants do not contest the duty demand but only challenge the penalty.4. The submission of the appellants who are represented b...

Vinod Goyal, Enee Industrial Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 40,20,000/- confirmed against M/s. Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed upon them and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed each of M/s. Engee Industrial Services Pvt Ltd., and Shri Vinod Goyal, Director of the company and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on M/s. Nikhil Alloy Steels Pvt Ltd., and proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, has confirmed the duty demand on the ground inter-alia that goods imported were cleared without a valid licence and, hence, liable to confiscation in addition to duty liability. Penalty has been imposed on the Director of the importer and that Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the import and sale of goods in contravention of law. M/s. Nikhil Alloy Steels Pvt Ltd., has been penalized on the ground that their concern in depositing and keeping goods w...

Ajit Chandrakant Satka(sic), Prop. of Ajit Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Di ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR96; 2004(2)BomCR252

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 3645 of 2003 not on Board. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken on Board and heard finally with an identical matter, being Writ Petition No. 3643 of 2003, which is already on Board today.2. The petitions are filed against orders passed by the Appellate Authority on May 2, 2003. Exhibits 'O' and 'P'.3. It may be stated that dance floor licences of the petitioners were cancelled by the Collector against which appeals were filed. They were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved by the said orders, two Writ Petitions were instituted, which were dismissed summarily.Against those orders, two Letters Patent Appeals, being Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 344 of 2002 and 346 of 2002, were instituted. By a common judgment and order dated February 3, 2003, the appeals were allowed, and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority were set aside. The matters were remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the same in...

Rama Hariba Khavale Vs. Gopika Ramling Survase and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom449; 2003(4)ALLMR554; 2004(2)BomCR841

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. The petitioner is original defendant 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 313 of 1980. The suit came to be filed by heirs of one Ganpati Hariba Khavale, the deceased brother of the petitioner and defendant 2 for partition and separate possession of the suit property.2. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 26th September, 1986 decreed the suit. The trial court declared that plaintiffs 1 to 3 an defendants 1 and 2 will have one third share in the suit properties and the parties are entitled to the partition and possession of their one third share. The trial court ordered that partition of lands be got effected by the Collector, Solapur or by the Gazetted subordinate appointed by him for this purpose.3. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the petitioner carried an appeal to the court of IV Addl. District Judge, Solapur being Civil Appeal No. 752 of 1986. In that appeal the petitioner preferred an application. In the application he stated that prior to conso...

In Re: Mayfair Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR235; [2004]122CompCas748(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ102(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj663; [2003]46SCL672(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Company Petition No. 326 of 2003 is filed by transferor-company while Company Petition No. 327 of 2003 is filed by the transferee-company. The transferor and transferee-companies have sought approval and sanction from this Court for the scheme of arrangement, of amalgamation of the transferor-company into the transferee-company. Under the scheme, all properties and assets of the transferor-company along with its liabilities are proposed to be taken over by transferee-company.2. By two separate orders dated 7th February, 2003 in Company Application No. 73 of 2003 and Company Application No. 74/03 filed by transferor and transferee-companies, this court directed holding of the separate meetings of the equity shareholders of transferor as well as transferee-company. The court however, dispensed with the holding of the meetings of the creditors of both the transferor and transferee-companies for the reasons stated in the said orders. Accordingly, separate meetings of the ...

Everett Travel Service Vs. Asm Shipping Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR226

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Leave under Rule 19(3) of the Company Court Rules, 1959 granted to the applicant to take out a Judges Summons in terms of draft Judges Summons handed in, Judges Summons made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing.2. The learned counsel for the respondent files affidavit in reply sworn in by Ms. Kashmira Seth on 26th June, 2003. Affidavit is taken on record.3. Company Petition No. 188 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner, a creditor, for winding-up of the respondent-company. After hearing the petitioner and the company, the petition was admitted by this court by an order dated 8th August, 2002 and was advertised in Free Press Journal and Janma Bhoomi. It appears that thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the Company. The petitioner therefore, requested the Court for permission to withdraw the petition whereupon the Court directed that an advertisement of the proposed withdrawal be published in the same newspapers. On publicatio...

Jagannath S/O Vyankatrao Thakare Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj854

R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 10-4-2000 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1995 by which judgment and order, the present appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The facts in brief of the case of prosecution are as follows:(A) That, the deceased Vijay Shriram Dharmale and the son of the present appellant by name; Sanjay Thakare were friends. They used to conduct business of repairing fans and coolers in a rented room taken on rent from one Vinayak Shriram Sangole. On 29-4-1995 at about 10.40 in the morning, the present appellant is said to have hurled filthy abuses in a loud voice. He has alleged to have said, 'Sanjay, ...