Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Atul Ratikant Shah Vs. Shekhar K. Shah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR626(Bom); 2004(1)BomCR62; 2003(4)MhLj602

P.C. 1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The applicant and the respondent are Directors of XACA (India) Pvt. Ltd., a Private LimitedCompany registered under the Companies Act, 1956. When the proceeding waspending before the Company Law Board for adjudication, on 11-4-1997, thepetitioner had entered into an Arbitration Agreement agreeing to refer alldisputes to the Sole Arbitration of Mr. Milind S. Kothari. It appears thatthereafter on 27-4-1998, the petitioner approached the Company Law Boardwhereupon the Company Law Board passed the following order :-- 'At the request of the parties, in continuation of our order dated 3-4-1998we give liberty to the petitioner to revise the petition in case thearbitration proceedings fail.' 2. On 11-4-1997, a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of theCompany whereby Mr. Milind S. Kothari was given sole authority to operateCompany's Bank accounts...

Balasaheb Panditrao Pawar Vs. International Airport Authority of India ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)IILLJ318Bom; 2004(1)MhLj701

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th February, 1984 and all subsequent orders in appeal etc. on the ground that they are wholly illegal and unsustainable in law.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as Traffic Warden with the respondent and according to the respondents, the petitioner was involved in misbehaviour amounting to misconduct. The allegations against the petitioner were that he acted in a high handed manner with the superiors and the conduct was unbecoming of a servant. He is also alleged to had some money on his person, which according to him was to be returned to his another colleague. According to the respondent employer, this amounted to misconduct.3. The respondent therefore issued an order of removal dated 15th February 1984 removing the petitioner from service for the said misbehaviour on the midnight of 30th and 31st January 1984. In passing this order recourse was taken in the Regulation 33(ii) of ...

Harshvardhan Exports and R.C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC403

1. The appellants are 100% E.O.U. engaged in the processing of dyeing and printing of Man Made Fabrics. The officers during the course of a visit and checks noticed after comparison of the physical stocks of fabric with recorded stocks shortage. A show cause notice for demand as follows was issued :- "(i) recover Customs duty amounting to Rs. 20,46,275/- on 3,87,522 L.Mtrs. of Grey fabrics valued at Rs.46,50,624/- under Section 72 read with Proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962; (ii) recover the interest @24% per annum on delayed payment of evaded Customs duty under Section 28 AB of Customs Act, 1962; (iii) impose penalty under Section 72 read with Section 114-A of Customs Act, 1962. (iv) Impose penalty upon Shri Rameshchandra Chunnilal Agarwal, Director of Mill under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962." The learned Commissioner after hearing the part concluded that the raw material i.e. Grey Fabric, were bonded goods in terms of Chapter on Ware-Housing under ...

Kobian Ecs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Since the Commissioner has found that the goods were not entitled for DEPB under Serial No. 86 of the product code 83 of the DEPB schedule and held that the goods covered by such shipping bills liable for confiscation under Section 113 (d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and since the goods had been already allowed to be exported and were not available for confiscation thus the appellants, as exporter, were liable for a penalty of Rs. 9 Lakhs under Section 114(I) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence this appeal. (a) They are engaged in the manufacture Accelerated Graphic Processor (AGP card), falling under Heading 8.73 as parts and accessories of automatic data processing machines. The AGP card is fixed inside the Computer for providing connection between computer and Monitor (visual display unit). This AGP card is nothing but populated printed circuit board i.e. printed circuit board on which components such as transistors, resistors are mounted. (b) They exported the AGP cars unde...

Harshvardhan Exports and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are 100% E.O.U. engaged in the processing of dyeing and printing of Man Made Fabrics. The Officers during the course of a visit and checks noticed after comparison of the physical stocks of fabric with recorded stocks shortage. A show cause notice for demand as follows was issued:- "(i) recover Customs duty amounting to Rs. 20,46,275/- on 3,87,552 L.Mtrs. of Grey fabrics valued at Rs. 46,50,624/- under Section 72 read with Provision to Sub Section (1) of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962; (ii) recover the interest @24% per annum on delayed payment of evaded Customs duty under Section 28 AB of Customs Act, 1962; (iii) impose penalty under Section 72 read with Section 114-A of Customs Act, 1962. (iv) Impose penalty upon Shri Rameshchandra Chunnilal Agarwal, Director of Mill under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962." The learned Commissioner after hearing the party concluded that the raw material i.e. Grey Fabric, were bonded goods in terms of Chapter on Ware-Housing und...

Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC379

1. Heard both sides. The appellants manufacture pollution control equipments and parts thereof, which were earlier eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 78/90, dated 20.3.1990. It is the claim of the appellants that exemptions to pollution control equipments were consolidated in the budget Notification No. 5/98 dated 2.6.1998 but by mistake the parts were omitted. Subsequently, on representation from the industry, Notification No. 32/98 dated 21.9.1998 was issued extending coverage to the parts. The issue in this case relates to concessional duty to parts of pollution control equipments during the period 2.6.1998 to 20.9.1998. It is the claim of the appellants that omission of the parts from the Notification dated 2.6.98 was a mistake of the Government, which has been subsequently rectified, and therefore, the Notification No. 32/98 dated 21.9.1998 should be taken as clarificatory notification and the exemption should be extended for the intervening period. The...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri A.Q. Sayyed, Shri Pinheiro

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC29

1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the issues are the same.2. The Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (SIIB for short), New Customs House, Mumbai, on the basis of an information made enquiries into the unauthorized import of Mitsubishi vehicles, shipped from Dubai and sought to be cleared on TR basis, learnt that 10 vehicles belonging to a Company at Dubai, who were doing vehicle business by taking loan from Standard & Chartered Bank there, have been imported in the name of various persons who have neither the money nor in possession of the vehicles for one year. It was also found by SIIB that there was a dispute between the company and the bank regarding the repayment of the loans and the bank at Dubai had disposed of the said vehicles, by an auction on 26.01.1995. The Show Cause Notices issued, as seen in the case of Appellant in Appeal No. 968/R/97-MUM alleged:- (i) The vehicle imported was auctioned by Standard & Chartered Bank on 21/0...

Television and Components and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Colour Television sets of various sizes and models. They claimed benefit of notification No.67/89-CE dtd.01.03.89 Sl.No. 18 thereof, which reads as under:-18. 8528.00 Television receivers (other thanRupees - on the classification list filed by them and discharged duty at the rates as prescribed by this exemption after the classification lists were approved by the proper officers.2. A show cause notice dtd.11.07.94 was issued pursuant to a visit by the Central Excise Officer (Preventive) to their factory and certain enquiries conducted by them. The show cause notice demanded duty of Rs. 65,15,362.50 in respect of 24481 Television sets cleared by them during the period 17.6.92 to 10.12.92. The demand was made by invoking to proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and also proposed the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. The notice was replied on behalf of the company and on beh...

Kamdhenu Gramodyog Detergent Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT343Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Kamdhenu Gramodyog Detergent Unit, the appellant before us, was engaged in the manufacture of detergent washing powder and did not pay duty on the product on the view that it was covered by the provisions of the exemption contained in notification 88/88. Notice issued to it demanded duty on the ground that one of the conditions subject to which the exemption contained in the notification was available, that the goods are manufactured by institutions in rural areas by a registered co-operative society by women's society or by a institution recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or a State Khadi and Village Industries Board or by units run by cash assistance from District Rural Development Agencies (under the Integrated Rural Development Programme) had not been satisfied. It proceeded on the basis that the certificate issued by Gujarat Khadi Pratishtan of which the appellant's unit name did not specify. After considering the cause shown by the appellant, the Commis...

The Kolhapur Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant absent, DR heard in the matter and it is found that the issue could be decided in absence of the appellant. Request for adjournment is rejected.2. The appeal is against the denial of Capital goods Modvat credit on Magnesite Bricks and M.S. Angles, used as components/parts of electric arc furnace on the ground that they do not produce, process or bring about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products and the specific finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect: "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants. I find that electric arc furnace has been permanently embedded to the earth and has become immovable property. Therefore, magnesite bricks and M.S. angles cannot be considered as parts of excisable goods and will not be entitled to modvat credit. Credit has, therefore, been correctly denied." a) The items are admitted parts and components of the Electric Arc furnace. b) Nothing has been shown by Revenue to limit the i...