Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bhagwandas Bharumal and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT613Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. S.K. International had imported Pentaerythritol against 2 freely transferable REP licences originally issued to M/s. Bhagwandas Bharumal & Co. in 1984. Clearance against these licences was not allowed by the department as the two licences have been suspended by Jt. C.C.I & E by an order dated 5-10-1984 prior to the date of shipment i.e. 19-10-84. The licences were finally cancelled by the Licensing Authority by order dated 12-12-84; goods were released in terms of interim orders of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on furnishing of Bank Guarantee and bond; as per the final order of the Bombay High Court dated 17-3-94, the Commissioner took up the case for adjudication upholding the validity of the import and held that the goods were not liable for confiscation. Hence, these appeals by the Revenue.2. We have heard Shri A. Shukla D.R. for the Revenue. As none appeared for the respondents in spite of notice, we perused the records. We find...

Nisa Industrial Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT66Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a security agency, providing security services, and was required to pay service tax. It paid the tax on various dates as required by the law. The tax was paid into the Khar Branch of the Dena Bank. The notice issued to it demanded interest on the tax that was paid, on the ground that the tax ought to have been paid into Bank of India, as this was the bank designated for payment of Service tax by the assessees, like the appellant, situated in the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V. The adjudicating authority passed an order, directing the appellant to pay the tax that it found due, on his view that what was paid into the Dena Bank was not tax, and demanded in addition interest on the tax. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the amount should be deposited in the designated bank, and confirmed the demand for tax. He set aside the interest. Hence, this appeal.2. It cannot be disputed that what the appellant paid...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ideal Sheet Metal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT106Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessee received back for re-making a consignment of plastic bobbin holders that it manufactured. After re-making them, it cleared without payment of duty. Thereafter, it filed a claim for refund the duty that has been paid when the goods were initially cleared. This was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the accounts that the assessee has maintained with regards to the goods, did not bear particulars of brand name of the product and description of excisable components used in their manufacture. The assessee appealed from this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the lapse was one of procedures and allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The ground in the appeal that the application have been filed under Section 35F of the Act with regard to the decision of the Tribunal Anil Starch Products Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 1992 (57) E.L.T 662 is entirely irrelevant. The Commissioner (Appeals) does not rely on this decision in his ord...

Envair Electrodyne Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for changing the name of the appellant in the cause title from Kirloskar Electordyne Ltd. to Envair Electordyne Ltd. is accepted.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the "sound proof canopies" mainly for electrical generator that the appellant manufactured. These canopies, it is stated, are made of mild steel. They contain on their inner side a layer of glass wool which has an insulator. It is stated that their function is to insulate the sound of the generator and also to protect generators which are located outdoors from the elements.3. The appellant cleared these goods between July 1995 and July 2000.During the period in question, the appellant had filed declarations in respect of the goods in which they were described as "prefabricated buildings - prefabricated power house - made from iron and sheets with insulation - sound proof canopy". The appellant classified the goods in heading 94.06 of the tariff which includes inter a...

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant purchased biscuits that had been manufactured by other persons and sent to it after being packed in cartons. It affixed upon the cartons sticker containing the appellant's logo, the kind of biscuits (e.g. "Marie"), showing net weight and bearing name and address of the consignee. The appellant on its view that the act of affixing a label on the biscuits rendered the goods to have been manufactured in terms of note 3 to Chapter 19 took credit under Rule 57A of the duty paid on the biscuits by the persons who have manufactured them, and utilised such credit towards payment of duty on other goods that it manufactured and cleared for home consumption. No duty was paid on the biscuits that were removed. The two notices issued to the appellant proposed to recover the credit that had been taken, on the ground that the appellant's activity did not amount to manufacture.The Assistant Commissione...

Shri Arjun Dada Gadage Vs. Mallappa Gurappa Chougule and Subhashchandr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom441; 2003(4)ALLMR39; 2004(1)BomCR741; 2003(4)MhLj256

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent.3. As short question is involved, the matter is taken for final hearing forthwith, by consent.4. Respondent No. 1 has died long back during the pendency of the proceedings before the lower Court. In this view of the matter, Counsel for the Petitioner orally prays for permission to delete Respondent No. 1. As per oral request, Petitioner is allowed to delete Respondent No. 1 at his risk. Amendment be carried out forthwith.5. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kurundwad dated October 8, 2001 below Exhibit 45 in R.C.S. No. 66 of 1985. The Respondent along with the deleted Respondent No. 1 has filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, being regular Suit No. 66 of 1985. In the said suit, application for interim relief (Exhibit 5) was filed, which was, however, rejected. The matter was carried in ap...

Dinesh Vrajlal Lakhani Vs. Parke Davis (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR496; 2004(1)BomCR120; [2005]124CompCas728(Bom); [2003]47SCL80(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings an order passed by Justice O.K. Deshmukh on 7th February, 2003 by which the Learned Judge sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation of Parke-Davis (India) Ltd. with Pfizer Limited is called into question- By and as a result of the Scheme of Amalgamation, the undertaking of Parke-Davis (India) Ltd., stands transferred and vested in Pfizer Ltd. pursuant to the provisions of Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, as a going concern with effect from 1st December, 2001, the appointed date.The Transferor & Transferee :2. Pfizer, the transferee, was incorporated on 21st November, 1950 under the Companies Act, 1913. The authorised capital of the Company is Rs. 40 crorcs, while the issued capital is Rs. 23.44 crores. Pfizer engages in the business of the manufacture and sale of Bulk Drugs, Pharmaceutical formulations, Animal Health Products and Nutritional Supplements. Pfizer was incorporated inter alia with the object of carrying on the business of the ma...

Ms. Purnima Jaitly Vs. Ravi Bansi Jaisingh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom494; 2003(4)ALLMR605; 2004(1)BomCR775; 2004(1)MhLj114

D.G. Karnik, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in the suit is whether the suit is maintainable as a summary suit ?2. The facts as pleaded in the plaint may be briefly stated thus:The plaintiff knew the defendant for 10 years. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff advanced to the defendant a friendly loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 7th December, 1995 for which the defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 21% p.a. The loan was repayable by 31st December, 2000. The defendant paid interest to the plaintiff at the agreed rate up to 30th September, 1997 but thereafter failed to pay further interest and also failed to repay the principal sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Plaintiff therefore filed the suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with interest under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Admittedly, there is no written agreement between the parties regarding the loan nor has the defendant executed a bill of exchange, a hundi or a pr...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.N. Naik Associates and anr. and Ranga ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR801; (2004)187CTR(Bom)162; [2004]265ITR346(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by a common order as the facts involved are the same and similar questions of law arise. The respondents hereto were parties to a family settlement dated January 30, 1997. Pursuant to the said family settlement, there was a deed of reconstitution of various partnerships as set out under the family settlement. For the assessment year 1997-98, the partnerships were taxed for capital gains under Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. An appeal was preferred against the said order by the assessee which came to be dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated June 16, 2000. An appeal was then preferred to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by the assessee. The appeal was allowed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that there was no dissolution but only reconstitution. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also held that the expression 'otherwise' had to be read ejusdem generis and would contemplate situations like a deemed d...

Mohmad Hafiz Khan Vs. Anand Finance and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)6; I(2004)BC606

R.S. Mohite, J. 1. Heard the parties. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The applicant filed this revision seeking to quash and set aside the orders passed below Exhibit Nos. 2 and 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. The brief reasoned facts are that the present applicant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and by an order dated 9.5.2002, the Second Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Yavatmal convicted the applicant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant Sunil Phulchand Bharut, proprietor of 'Anand Finance, Yavatmal' and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.3. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the present applicant filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yava...