Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below, we allow the application for stay of operation of the order of the lower Appellate Authority and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants herein filed 2 Bills of Entry in November, 2002 for clearance of antimony metal bigots of 99.65% minimum purity of Chinese origin. The department entertained a reasonable doubt regarding the declared value of USD 2425/2450 PMT. It was noticed that there were contemporaneous imports at the rate of USD 3570 PMT and further it was noticed that the LME price during the relevant period ranged between USD 3000 -3200 PMT. The Dy.Commissioner determined the value of the imported goods at the rate of USD 3000 PMT cif on the best judgment principle under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, keeping in view that the appellants might have succeeded in obtaining a better price on negotiation. Against the enhancement of value, ...

Commissioner of Customs (Ep) Vs. Nitco Tiles Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT505Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared for the respondents. There is also no request for adjournment. Heard Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R. for the Department.The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai imposing redemption fine of Rs. 1 Lakh in each case and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case was reviewed by the Board and the present appeal has been filed in pursuance of Board's Review order N0.153-R/ 2001 dtd.26/07/2001.2. It is seen that the Adjudicating Commissioner has recorded the following in the finding portion of his order:- "On 14/7/2000 Shri Vivek Talwar, Director of M/s Nitco Tiles Ltd. attended the personal hearing. He stated that exports under the two S/Bills were being made towards fulfillment of export obligation against EPCG Licence No. 01500322/1/13/10/1/01 dt. 21/3/96 and that this fact was indicated on the S/Bills themselves. He also admitted that the declared value of US$ 650Pper Sq.mtr. was very high and frankly conceded that the market value would not be m...

Maharashtra Seamless Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT106Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. These two appeals involve ex-bond clearances in respect of which interest has been charged under Section 47 for the delay in payment of duty in respect of ex-bond bills of entries. It is the contention of the appellants that these clearances have been made under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 since the impugned goods were warehoused in the first instance. They further contend that the warehoused goods would be governed by the Section 61 under which, if the goods remained beyond the normal period of warehousing, interest is chargeable at a rate specified in Section 47. They further contend that only the rate in Section 47 has to be applied but not the provision of Section 47 as such which is applicable to goods which are cleared for home consumption.3. In view of the fact that the impugned goods were initially warehoused and subsequently cleared by filing ex-bond bills of entries under Section 68, provisions of Section 47 including charging of interest for del...

Jcit, Special Range-22 Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue's appeal directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XX, Mumbai dated 8.2.99 for the A.Y. 1995-96. The only effective ground raised by the revenue vide this appeal is as under:- "Of the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of business loss of Rs. 77,83,799/- without appreciating the fact that the said amount is due as a debt from the defaulter brokers." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of share broking and trading activity and was a member of Bombay Stock Exchange. During the year two brokers Mr. R.S.Jhaveri and Mr. Anil Mithalal were declared defaulters by the stock exchange. The assessee incurred a loss of Rs. 76,91,365/- in connection with transaction with Mr. R.S. Jhaveri and a loss of Rs. 92,434/- in connection with transaction with Mrs. Anil Mithalal. The assessee claimed these losses as regular trading losses during the same asses...

Smt. Noorjahan M. Aslam Ansari Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR1; 2004(2)BomCR468; 2004(3)MhLj435

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27th May 2003 passed by the Commissioner Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation-Respondent No. 3. This order declares that the Petitioner has ceases to be a Member of the Municipal Corporation in view of the provisions of Section 10(1)(i) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, 'BPMC Act'). This amendment came into force on 12th September 2000 and it provided that a Corporator will be disqualified, if he or she has more than two children.3. The grievance of Mr. Dhakephalkar appearing for the Petitioner, apart from the submissions on merits, is that under the amended Act, the Authority to decide such a dispute is a Judge of the Court of Senior Division. This submission is made on the basis of Section 12 of the BPMC Act read with definition of a Judge as occurring under Section 2(29) of the BPMC Act. Se...

Swamini Leasing and Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)326

ORDERA.K. Garodia, A.M.:All these three appeals are assessee's appeals directed against the common order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-X, Mumbai, dated 14-7-1999, for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. As common issue is involved in all these three appeals, we dispose of the same by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. Although the assessee had raised only one ground in all these three appeals, additional grounds of appeal were also raised vide letter dated 1-1-2004. The original ground in all the three years relates to applicability of the Explanation to section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and taxing of dividend income without setting off of the business losses. In the additional grounds, the ground No. (A) relates to assessment year 1995-96 wherein the dividend and interest income exceeds the amount of business loss and the applicability of Explanation to section 73 has been challenged on this account also for assessment year 1995-96. The additional gr...

S.P. Garg and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. S.P. Garg, Director of the Ramji Board and Paper Mills Pvt.Ltd interalia contended that the appellants were denied the cross examination by the successor Commissioner on the ground that earlier the noticees had refused cross examination. He submitted that he appeared in person and as such he should not have been denied the opportunity of cross examination. His contention is that since the appellants have been denied the opportunity of cross examination it clearly violates the principles of natural justice and the order appealed against requires to be set aside on this ground alone. Shri.A. Chopra, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he submitted that since the appellants have been denied the cross examination sought for, he has no objection for the matter being remanded to the Commissioner for re-adjudication after the necessary cross examination is allowed to the appellants as sought for before him.2. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find it ...

J.K. Imports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri T. Viswanathan, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and he submitted that the adjudicating authority has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 80,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 112 of the said Act for violation of provisions of the EXIM Policy 1993-97. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the items imported related to consignment of "Wild Rue" as per Bill of Entry No. 4097 dated 14.05.95 and Bill of Entry No. 9070 dated 23.5.95. The assessment of the item imported was under Heading 1211.90. This Heading covers the following:- "Plants and parts of plants (including seeds and fruits) of a plant used primarily in perfumery, in pharmacy or for insecticidal, fungicidal, or similar purposes fresh or dried whether or not cut, crushed or powdered" "Heading No. 12.11 applies, inter alia, to the following plants or parts thereof; basil, bo...

The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Gsl Products Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC168

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/ original applicant Bank i.e.Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai in Original Application No. 607/2001 (DRT, Jaipur O.A. No. 388/2000). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application of the Bank against defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 with costs and did order that the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 do jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank an amount of Rs. 4,08,78,198.59 with interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum from the date of filing of the original application in DRT, Jaipur till full realization. He also gave consequential declarations and directed issuance of recovery certificate as per the above terms. However, the appellants are aggrieved as the learned Presiding Officer did not grant any penal interest to the applicant Bank and also did not award compounded interest but...

Transchem Limited and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC135

1. This transfer petition is filed by the appellants/original defendants in two separate and independent proceedings filed in Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai and Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune respectively. The prayer made by the appellants/original petitioners is that this Chairperson as per the discretion conferred upon her under Sub-clause (2) of Section 17-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as RDB Act) has power to transfer Original Application No. 79P of 2001, pending in the DRT, Pune to DRT-I, Mumbai and be heard along with Original Application No. 267 of 1999 which is pending on the file of DRT-I, Mumbai. The reason given for this transfer is that by such a transfer multiplicity of proceedings so also inconsistency in the orders and judgments that would be passed by the DRT-I, Mumbai can be avoided. It is submitted that the matters in issue are similar and the parties are also same and no harm and prejudice ...