Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector Vs. Gangadhar S/O Girmalapp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj881

A.B. Naik, J.1. These four appeals - two by the claimants and two by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the common judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 176 and 177 both of 1986. The Land Acquisition Reference No: 176/ 1986 is filed by Shri Gangadhar Girmalappa Utge, the owner of the land Survey No.1, at Ausa proper, and Land Acquisition Reference No. 177/1986 by Shri Sidramappa Shankarappa Mitkari, the owner of the land Survey No: 188 situated at Ausa. Both the lands to the extent of 2H each, were acquired by the State, for construction of huts for dis-housed persons, by issuing a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), on 11th March, 1980. After issuance of preliminary notification under section 4, declaration under section 6 was made on 25th September, 1980. The award came to be declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Latur on 17th March 19...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nicholas Lab India Ltd., Shri R.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC26

1. Heard both sides. This appeal has been filed in pursuance of the order of Review passed by the Board. The grounds of appeal as stated in Para 7.1 of the Board's order are as follows: "While on the one hand, the Commissioner has held that Shri Laxman, Manager of M/s. Perfect Caps and M/s. Perfect Closures has actively connived in various contraventions of law by M/s. Perfect Caps and M/s. Perfect Closures. On the other hand, she has held that in the case of M/s. Perfect Caps suppression cannot be said to have been made with intention to evade payment of duty. These findings are contradictory to each other and besides as this is the matter of Modvat credit and demand is issued for recovery under Rule 57-I, read with Section 11-A extended period of 5 years is invocable. The proviso to Rule 57-I says that where credit is taken on account of wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts on the Part of the manufacture or on assessee, five years period can be invoked. The Show Ca...

Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT846Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Mahadevan, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants have been denied Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 49,181/- in respect of paints for the period of 26-6-1991 to 2-7-1993 though the same have been used in the manufacture of the finished goods. He also states that the appellants have been allowed similar benefit for the earlier period and the later period.2. Shri Hemant Kotikar, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Department states that the appellants had themselves through their letter dated 12-10-1999 had asked for deletion of paints from their earlier declaration and as such, denial of credit is justified on the basis of the appellant's own declaration. However, he has no explanation as to why the appellants were allowed credit on paints for the period October, 1989 to June/1991 and only the credit for the period from 12-6-1991 to 12-7-1991 was disallowed.3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I find that there is no justification for disa...

Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure to deposit about half the duty demanded.3. The notice issued to the appellant demanded duty on two counts. The first related to modvat credit taken as duty paid on inputs that the appellant used in manufacturing processed fabrics, which were destroyed in a fire that broke out in the appellant's factory. This accounts for Rs 40.88 lakhs out of the total duty of Rs 42.87 lakhs. The Deputy Commissioner, whose order was in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is somewhat confused. He says that the decision of the Tribunal in Inalsa Ltd v. CCE 1997 (90) ELT 417 and other decisions of the Tribunal following it, holding that the provisions of Rule 57C will not apply in a case where the remission of duty has been granted on finished products manufactured out of these inputs, because the remission is not equivalent to exemption from duty will not apply because no remission has been...

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT106Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. the assesee, is engaged in the manufacture of medicament which it removes on payment of duty from its depots from where they have cleared to the dealers. It is claimed that the assessee was providing discounts to its customers from the list price and determines the assessable value of the medicament by deducting from the list price sums work to this discount transport and other charges. Notice issued to the appellant proposed to deny these deductions on the ground that these discounts had actually not been passed on and that the assessee also recovered the transport charges from its customers. Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty equal to the duty and also imposed a penalty on Ratnakar Sonawane, its authorised signatory.3. The basis for the proposals in the notices is the declaration filed on 1.2.1999 by the assessee...

Trend Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals of the assessee against the common order of the Assistant Commissioner, adjudicating upon two notices issued to it, demanding duty alleged to have been short paid.The counsel for the appellant explains that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, as a job worker. It had filed separate price lists in respect of three firms Pharmpak Pvt Ltd, Blue Cross Lab Ltd and Rhone Poulenc Ltd. The appellant had claimed the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 245/83 in respect of medicament manufactured for Pharmpack Pvt Ltd but had not claimed exemption in respect of the medicament manufactured for other two. The notice issued to it proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that the condition contained in Clause (3) of the proviso had not been complied with. This condition requires the manufacturer to claim exemption under the notification in respect of...

Ashok Premji Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT568Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The authorities below have confiscated liquor bottles and miniature bottles recovered on 12-11-1993 from 7 shops and residential premises owned/managed by the appellants herein under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as liquor was held to be of foreign origin and smuggled, and have imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- upon the appellants.3. The orders of the authorities below do not treat the appellant as the importers of the goods in question and have treated the appellant only as the person from whose possession the goods were seized.Therefore, the ld. Counsel is correct in contending that the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act are not attracted as it is a town seizure. Therefore, confiscation under Section 111(d) and resultant penalty under Section 112(b) are not sustainable in law. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, on this ground alone, without going further into the submission that the seized goods were Indian liquor a...

Shri Kishor R. Madan Vs. Shri Ramesh A. Phatnani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR176; 2004(2)BomCR762; 2004(1)MhLj820

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Since the common question of law and facts arise in both the civil applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. These are the civil applications for condonation of delay of 192 days in filing the review petitions in relation to the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2002 passed in Civil Revision Application Nos. 1131 of 2002 and 1133 of 2002. By the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2002, both the revision applications were allowed and the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the applications for amendment to the written statement were set aside and the parties were allowed to amend the written statement.4. The ground for condonation of delay is that the decisions of this Court, one in Rajabhau S/o. Mahadeo Rao Rahate v. Dinakar Shantaram Ingale, reported in : (2001)1BOMLR87 and another in Zahida Nizamuddin Jala and Ors. v. Abidali Jalfer...

Devang Rasiklal Vora Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR450; 2004(92)ECC648; 2003LC658(Bombay); 2003(158)ELT30(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj208

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the common order dated 6th May, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CEGAT' for short); whereby the Appeal Nos. C/614 of 1988 and C/500 of 1988 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Considering the ground on which we are disposing of this petition and since we are not touching the merits of the matter, the narration of facts involved in this petition is not necessary.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made serious complaint while challenging the impugned order and contended that the said order has been passed by the CEGAT after more than two years from the date of hearing of the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appeals filed by the petitioner were heard on 19th April, 2001 and the appeals were closed for orders and reserved for judgment. The order came to be passed on 6th May, 2003. The same was communicated to the petitioner on 13th June, 2003.3. Accor...

Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi Vs. Dinkar Yashwant Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1083; 2004(1)MhLj138

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1976 the original plaintiff has come up in second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court on 19-7-1987 in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 131 of 1984 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 20-9-1984 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 133 of 1981 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff seeking relief of possession on the strength of title as well as on the ground that the defendant has made encroachment to the extent of 2 gunthas on the land of the former.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:The plaintiff is the owner of agricultural land bearing survey No. 75/4-A situated at Nandura, district Buldana. It is contended that the plaintiff had purchased the land of 7 gunthas from the erstwhile owner Motisingh by virtue of four different sale-deeds executed by Motisingh on 2-7-1974, 29-8-1974, 4-10-1974 and 5-2-1975. The case...