Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Macleaods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance duty of Rs. 7,47,737/- (out of the demand of Rs. 9,36,148/-, Rs. 1,88,411.99 already stands paid), we find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are manufacturers of medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.During the period March 1995 to June 1997, the Central Excise department registered a case against them for clandestine removal and for undervaluation, and issued a show cause notice on 5.12.1997 raising a duty demand of Rs. 3,19,75,662.03. The appellants opted for the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and paid an amount of Rs. 1,20,36,224/- as directed. A show cause notice dated 3.10.2001 came to be issued alleging that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) read with Rule 173C and 173F of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as they c...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hitkari Potteries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein imported goods described as Primacor under bills of entry. They paid duty and cleared the goods but subsequently claimed that they had paid duty in excess and that they filed claims for refund of the excess duty paid.The adjudicating authority examined the documents produced by the importers to establish that incidence of duty, which was being claimed as refund, had not been passed on to any other persons and found that the evidence was insufficient and hence directed that the refund amount be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) perused the certificates of the Chartered Accountant and the Central Excise authorities certifying that the higher duty charged by them has not been included in the cost, and held as under:- "8. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and facts of the case. I find that the lower authority has already passed an order regarding the eligibility to the refund on...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sutex Yarn Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1043Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared for the respondents despite notice and adjournment granted earlier. Shri S.V. Parelkar, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue states that the impugned order has been decided by Shri M.C.Kaul, Commissioner (Appeals) without having jurisdiction to decide the same. In support of his contention, he has submitted a copy of Board's Order No. 390/3/36-JC (BMB), dated 31st December, 1997.2. After hearing learned JDR and perusal of case records, I find that the impugned order has been passed on 5-1-1999 by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the impugned order has been passed subsequent to the order allocating work among different Commissioners of appeals, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. As such, the same is set aside and remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case afresh....

Mr. Aseem Shabanali Merchant Legal Heir and Legatee of the Deceased Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1268

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Shaikh submitted that the present appellant happens to be the Director of the Company which received cheques in question, which bounced. Answering the query, he submitted that the present appellant was not Director of the said Company when complaint in question was filed. He further submitted that on 5th March, 2001 and 7th March 2001 all the Directors were no more alive, because they had committed suicide. Answering the query Shri Shaikh submitted that there were only three Directors of the complainant Company and after the said unfortunate episode, the present appellant was the only serving Director. Shri Shaikh submitted that on the date when the said complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted, i.e. on 7/9/2002 the complainant and his Advocate were absent. It is his submission that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Azeem v. A. Venkatesh and Anr., reported in 2003 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 146, the complaint should not ha...

Jivatsingh Dhansinghani Vs. Padma Hemandas and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR410; 2004(1)MhLj672

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Both these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are directed against a judgment and order dated 6th September, 1989 of the Additional District Judge, Pune. The suit for eviction filed by the landlord came to be dismissed. The dismissal of the suit by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune on 28th February, 1986 was affirmed by the Additional District Judge. Writ Petition No. 4819 of 1990 is by the landlord while Writ Petition No. 553 of 1990 is filed by the original Second Defendant who seeks to impugn that part of the judgment of the Court below in so far as it holds that he was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. For convenience of reference, it would be appropriate to refer to the parties as the landlord and the tenant.2. The premises in the present case consist of a residential flat bearing Flat No. 5 of Block No. 3 situated in Krishna Niwas...

Hotel Bandra International (P) Ltd. Through Its Authorised Representat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)BC556; 2004CriLJ143

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Shaikh submitted that the present appellant happens to be the Director of the Company which received cheques in question, which bounced. Answering the query, he submitted that the present appellant was not Director of the said Company when complaint in question was filed. He further submitted that on 5th March, 2001 and 7th March 2001 all the Directors were no more alive, because they had committed suicide. Answering the query Shri Shaikh submitted that there were only three Directors of the complainant Company and after the said unfortunate episode, the present appellant was the only serving Director. Shri Shaikh submitted that on the date when the said complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted, i.e. on 7/9/2002 the complainant and his Advocate were absent. It is his submission that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Azeem v. A. Venkatesh and Anr., reported in 2003 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 146, the complaint should not ha...

Merchant @ Somji Agro Industries and Investment (P) Ltd. Through Its A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)BC22; 2004CriLJ1012

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Shaikh Submitted that the present appellant happens to be the Director of the Company which received cheques in question, which bounced. Answering the query, he submitted that the present appellant was not Director of the said Company when complaint in question was filed. He further submitted that on 5th March, 2001 and 7th March 2001 all the Directors were no more alive, because they had committed suicide. Answering the query Shri Shaikh submitted that there were only three Directors of the complaint Company and after the said unfortunate episode, the present appellant was the only serving Director. Shri Shaikh submitted that on the date when the said complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted, i.e. on 7/9/2002 the complaint and his Advocate were absent. It is his submission that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Azeem v. A Venkatesh and Anr., reported in 2003 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 146, the complaint should not have be...

Blue Chip Real Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. Mr. Brij Mehra, Prop. Brij Enterpri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC47

J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Shri Shaikh submitted that the present appellant happens to be the Director of the Company which received cheques in question, which bounced. Answering the query, he submitted that the present appellant was not Director of the said Company when complaint in question was filed. He further submitted that on 5th March, 2001 and 7th March 2001 all the Directors were no more alive, because the had committed suicide. Answering the query Shri Shaikh submitted that there were only three Directors of the complainant Company and after the said unfortunate episode, the present appellant was the only serving Director. shri Shaikh submitted that on the date when the said complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted, i.e. on 7/9/2002 the complainant and his Advocate were absent. It is his submission that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Azeem v. A Venkatesh and Anr., reported in 2003 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 146, the complaint should not hav...

Sawalaram S/O Sakharam MoThe Vs. Ratnamalabai W/O Madhukar Joshi and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR477; 2004(1)MhLj311

S.A. Bobde, J.1. These two cross writ petitions are taken up for disposal by a common judgment, the relevant facts in brief are as follows.2. One Sawalaram claimed to be tenant of Survey No. 31/3 new Gat No. 187, admeasuring 6 acres 20 gunthas. He claims a lease in his favour by one Ratnamalabai and her daughter Alka. According to him, they leased the land to him in April, 1978 and put him in possession. They are then said to have sold the land by a registered Sale Deed dated 31st October, 1978 to one Ukanda, the Respondent No. 3 herein. Claiming that he was put in possession of the land as a tenant in April, 1978, Sawalaram made an offer within one year, on 28th December, 1978 to Ratnamalabai and Kumari Alka for purchase of the land. On this date admittedly the land had been sold by Ratnamalabai and Alka to Ukanda by a registered Sale Deed dated 31st October, 1978.3. Apparently, Ratnamalabai and Alka turned down Sawalaram's offer for purchase of the land. Therefore, on 25th January, 1...

Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 9,28,04.742/- and penalty of Rs. 9,28,14,742/- arises out the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. The applicants herein are engaged in the manufacture of man made processed fabrics. They are 100% EOU. The case of the department as reflected in the show cause notice and in the impugned order is that the applicants are required to pay duty equal to 50% of the aggregate of Customs duty leviable at the rate of 30% basic duty or Rs. 225/- per kg + 16% additional duty of Customs (CVD) + 0.05% Cess + 4% SAD upto 15/10/2000. The rate of duty was changed by the Notification No. 130/2000 Cus dated 16.10.2000 and effective rate was prescribed as Rs. 23/- per Sq.meter or 30% Adv.which ever is higher as Basic duty of Customs + 16% Additional duty of Customs + 0.59% Cess + 4% SAD for DTA sales. The above rates were prescribed under Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4/1/95. The plea of the applicants that they wee entitled to t...