Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Anwar Faramosh Khan Vs. Mahendrakumar Jugalkishore Gupta and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom232; 2004(3)ALLMR818; 2004(3)MhLj315

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. This motion is taken out by the plaintiff for appointment of a receiver and a direction to the receiver to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property as an agent of the receiver in a suit filed by the plaintiff for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,The relevant facts are briefly summarised below :2. On 27th December 2001, the plaintiff filed the suit No. 29 of 2002 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that he has been unlawfully dispossessed of the suit property by the defendant No. 2 on 9th December, 2001. The property consisting of a piece of land admeasuring about 2,499 sq. yards situated in Gundavli village and Taluka Salcettee Bombay Surburban District and forming part of survey No. 88 of Chakala and Survey No. 18 of Gundavli bearing non-agricultural survey No. 1833 entry No. 38D Taluka Salcettee along with two bungalows, one front and one rear, one chawl occupied by about 10 to 12 tenants and a shed constructed there...

Mukund L. Vora Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN294(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.The petitioner is challenging an order dated 18-2-1994 passed by the Appropriate Authority, respondent No. 2 herein, under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Appropriate Authority ordered purchase of the petitioners property by the Central Government, for apparent consideration of Rs. 3,62,25,050. The petitioner has not challenged acquisition of the said property. The challenge in the petition is restricted to the impugned order to the extent of withholding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of transfer fees allegedly payable to the co-operative housing society and secondly; the act of invoking concept of discounting envisaged under section 269UA(b) of the Act and thereby reducing the amount of apparent consideration from Rs. 3,70,00,000 to Rs. 3,62,25,050.Factual matrix2. Undisputed factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is that under an agreement dated 24-11-1993, the petitioner agreed to sell his pr...

Mrs. Usha A. Kalwani Vs. S.N. Soni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN708(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.This petition is directed against the order dated 3-11-1992 (Exhibit E) passed under section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading to the present petition in short are :Facts2. That on 29-12-1987 when the petitioner was leaving for Singapore from Calcutta Air Port, her person and baggage was searched by the Customs Officials at Calcutta Air Port and certain enquiries were made with respect to the fixed deposit receipts which she was carrying with her, neither any action was taken by the Customs authorities nor any intimation was passed on by them to the Income Tax Department.3. On the contrary, the petitioner on her own filed her returns on 12-4-1988 declaring her income for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89 in the sum of Rs. 17,380 and Rs. 18,440 respectively. On 27-4-1988 she further filed her return for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and declared her income in the sum of Rs. 50,000, 55,00...

S. JaIn and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT314Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant.Shri R.K. Chandan, J.D.R. appeared on behalf of the revenue.2. These appeals are against the order of Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad who has ordered confiscation of the vessel "Sea Queen" and 450 MT of cement under Sub-section 2 of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs, confiscated Tug Nashwan under Section 115(2) and Section 113 of the said Act and ordered to be released on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed various penalties on Appellants under Section 112 (a) of the said Act.3. The brief facts of the case are that M.V. Sea Queen, a dead vessel was purchased by M/s. Export Trade Corporation Ltd., Hong Kong. This vessel was towed by Tug Nashwa at Bhavnagar on 5/10/2000. Customs officers boarded the vessel on 6/10/2000 and noticed loose cement lying in Hatches 1 and 3 of the vessel "Sea Queen". Since this cement was not declared in the Import Manifest...

Central Engineering Corporation Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC667

1. Appellants had filed certain rebate claims, which were rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his No. 830/2000/Commr(A)/Raj dated 10/11/2000 allowed the appeal. Consequently the original authority took up the verification exercise and granted a claim of Rs. 1,408/- out of total claim of Rs. 56,837/-. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held as :- "The issue to be decided in the present appeal is circumscribed to the fact whether the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Rajkot was proper or not, in rejecting the substantial portion of the refund claim, in backdrop of the circumstance when this authority has already allowed the previous appeal of the appellant vide this office Order-in-Appeal No. 830/200l/Commr.(A)/Raj dated 10.11.2000. I find that, in the instant case the appellants have taken exception to the lower Adjudicating Authority's move in verifying the document after the issue being allowed by this authority. However, I find that observation the Adjudicatin...

Associated Capsules Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant stay application has been filed by the appellants seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 81,68,047/- and equivalent amount of penalty imposed on them vide the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The appellants manufacture PVC plain film and PVC film coated with polyvinyledine chloride (PVdC). The PVC, manufactured by the appellants is partially cleared for the market after payment of duty and partially within the factory for the manufacture of PVdC Film. The PVC film emerges in the roll form after the calendaring process which is subjected to quality testing by the Quality Assurance Department. On approval by the Quality Assurance Department, such rolls are taken to finishing section for final slitting and testing which includes blister packing trials and thermo-formability test. On final approval of such slitted reel, entries are made in RG-1 register and final packing is carried out.3. In case of captive consumption of PVC ...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Sudarshan Tex-port (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed refund to the respondents amounting to Rs. 52,913/-and Rs. 49,223/- respectively.The relevant notification allows such refunds subject to the condition that drawback is not availed by the claimant. It is the case of the applicant Commissioner that the respondents had filed drawback shipping bills and they have not shown any proof of not receiving drawback in respect of the impugned goods. On the other hand Smt. S.S. Mani Prakash, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the respondents states that it is a fact that drawback shipping bills were filed but no drawback has been claimed or received from the department. She further states that no drawback can be claimed unless the concerned Range officials give a certificate regarding non availment of modvat credit, which has not been obtained or furnished. As such, she states that it is clear that the respondents have not claimed or received any drawback. The department has also not produced...

Yashwant Process Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have been denied credit of input duty on the ground that the inputs were directly sent to the job workers. Shri Gajendra Jain, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the Rules do not prescribe the receipt of the goods directly by the job workers and in support of his contention he cites the Board's Circular No. 33/33/94-CX. 8, dated 4-5-1994 wherein there is a reference to sending raw materials/semi-finished goods directly from the supplier in Annexure 'B' and at Sl. No. 5 of the proforma intimation at Annexure-I. He, further states that this circular has not been taken note of by the lower authorities.2. In view of the fact that the rules do not specifically prohibit the receipt of raw material directly by the job workers and there is no dispute about debiting of the 10% of the required amount and return of the impugned goods after due processing by the job workers, I am of the view that the appellants are eligible for the input duty...

B.B.C. Associates Ltd. and ors. Vs. Oman International Bank Saog and

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC232

1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 18 in Original Application No. 719/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants praying for dismissing the original application filed by the applicant Bank namely Oman International Bank SAOG, as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try, entertain or dispose of the original application.2. I have heard Mr. Nansi for the appellants and Mr. Thakkar for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, which is assailed by the appellants in this appeal.3. In the application taken out by the defendant No. 1 and which was supported by other defendants, exception was take...

Mohanlal Vanmalidas and Company and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs, (Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR703; 2004(2)MhLj489

R.M. Lodha, J.1. On 28th April 1986 the Office of the Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive) Gold Control, Bombay issued the show cause notice to the petitioners for the contravention of provisions of Sections 27(7)(b), 31 and 36 read with Rule 13(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder and the petitioners were directed to show cause why the gold and gold ornaments total weighing 7460.100 gms. valued at Rs. 12,95,927/-should not be confiscated under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and why penalty be imposed on them under the said Act. The said notice dated 28th April 1986 reads thus :'OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE) GOLD CONTROL : III FLOOR, P.N.B. HOUSE,SIR P.M. ROAD, FORT, BOMBAY- 400 001.F. No. XVII(GC) 8-89/85/7214 Bombay, the 28th April 1986.SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 1) M/s Mohanlal Vanmalidas and Co.(G.D.L. No. 699/G/63) situated at 85, Vithalwadi,Bombay 400 002(a)Shri Chandulal Mansukhlal Soni ||}||All partners of the abo...