Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments

Mr. AmIn Merchant Vs. BipIn M. Gandhi and Dipak G. Cholera

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR38; [2006]134CompCas188(Bom); 2005(2)MhLj570

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging an award of the Appellate Bench of Arbitration Tribunal of Mumbai Stock Exchange, dated 17th September, 2003 passed in Appeal No.19A of 2003.2. Some of the material facts of the present case, briefly enumerated, are as under:According to respondent No.1, the petitioner was introduced to him through one Shri Vijay C. Shah for carrying on various transactions of purchase and sale of various shares of Bombay Stock Exchange. It is an admitted position that there is no member-client agreement executed by and between respondent No.1 and the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is a Director of M/s. Krishna Incap Services Pvt. Ltd. who is a member of National Stock Exchange of India. However, in respect of National Stock Exchange, there is client constitution agreement by and between the Company viz. M/s. Krishna Incap Services Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner herein.3. According to respondent No.1, there are transactions by and betw...

Urvesh Psyllium Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (imports)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As per the facts on record, the appellants exported Psyllium husk under DEPB scheme. Part of the goods were rejected by foreign buyers as such they were reimported. In the Bill of Entry filed for reimportation of goods, the appellant claimed the benefit of notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996. The exemption was denied on the ground that the goods have been reimported after a period of 1 year from the date of exportation and as such the benefit of the notification cannot be extended.Accordingly, the commissioner vide his impugned order, denied the benefit to the appellant, confiscated the goods with an opinion to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs, denied the benefit of DEPB credit in respect of the said goods and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. He also held that the goods are to be released to the appellant subject to no objection certificate from Public Health Authorities.2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S.N.Kantawalla,...

Chamaria Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT170Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing the appellant and finding out that the application for adjournment was sent by them, we restore the appeal dismissed earlier vide Order No. A/661/WZB/04-CII, dated 10-8-2004 and proceed to dispose the same inasmuch as the challenge in the appeal is only to personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed upon the appellant.2. After going through the impugned order, we find that the appellant deposited the cheque towards duty on 30-1-2001, whereas the due date for payment was 31-1-2004. However, due to earthquake, the appellant's cheque was cleared in the bank account on 2-2-2003. We find that as the cheque was credited in the bank on the subsequent date on account of unforeseen circumstance, no mala fide has to be attributed to the appellant. However, otherwise also we note, it is the settled position of law that it is the date of presentation of the cheque, which is to be taken into consideration and subsequent encashment of the cheque relates back to the date of rendering th...

Gandhinglaj Taluka Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue relates to remission of duty on account of baggaging loss.The Rule 21 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 read with Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944 does not cover the baggaging loss. I, therefore, do not find this a fit case on merits as well as on law....

Dr. Mohan N. Bhawe Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR300

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal from Order has been filed against an order refusing ad-interim relief. The short question involved in the present Appeal from Order is whether any relief ought to have been granted to the appellant in a suit where he challenges the notice issued to him under section 55(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (for short, 'the Act'). The appellant relies on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of The Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd. and Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2002 (4) ALL MR 429 to submit that an appeal lies for challenging the order passed under section 55 of the Act and proceedings before civil Court are not barred as stipulated in section 149 of the Act. The appellant claims to have purchased on ownership basis from a builder a flat admeasuring 784 sq.ft. alongwith the adjoining terrace admeasuring 450 sq.ft. in a building situated at Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. The appellant contends that he purchased the flat ...

Vasudeobhai Jadhaoji Rathod and ors. Vs. Neela Prabhulal Rathod and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR196; 2005(3)BomCR315

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners/original defendants challenged order dated 6th September, 2004 passed by Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below Exh. 122 in Special Civil Suit No. 354 of 1996 whereby the respondent No. 2 (original plaintiff No. 2, has been permitted to amend the plaint in order to incorporate challenge to alleged Wills executed by one Jadhaoji son Laddhu Rathore, original defendant No. 12 The suit has been made time bound by this Court by its judgment dated 20th April, 2004 delivered in Civil Revision No. 345 of 2000 and the direction was to dispose of the said suit within period of three months excluding period of summer vacation.2. Advocate Rohit Deo appearing for petitioners contends that by amendment an irrelevant plea and claim has been allowed to be added and the said claim has no bearing on original controversy involved in the suit. He contends that the learned Cour...

Subhash Mataji Pulate Vs. Laxmibai Somaji Khillare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR828; 2005(3)BomCR327; 2005(3)MhLj115

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this revision application, the original defendant challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad, on 22-1-1998, in MJC No. 5 of 1994 whereby the said Judge allowed the MJC and restored Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1991 back to file. The said civil suit was dismissed in default on 21-12-1993 and the present respondent (original plaintiff) preferred application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code. The suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the present revision applicant and one Bakaram Nago Khillare from disturbing or otherwise interfering with possession and user of suit land by present respondent No. 1 as plaintiff. Bakaram Khillare was defendant No. 1 in that suit and present revision applicant Subhash is defendant No. 2 in that suit. Bakaram was joined as respondent No. 2 in this revision and he has expired during its pendency.2. It appears that the said suit was fixed before the trial Court fo...

Core Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice proposing recovery of 8% of the value of the final products, which were cleared at nil rate of duty in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 36/2000 dated 04/05/2000. Prior to the said date, when the exemption was granted, the appellants were availing the benefit of the modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of I.V. Fluids, which were being cleared on payment of duty, as they attracted duty at the relevant time.2. The said amount was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. On an appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are liable to reverse the modvat credit availed by them when the final products was dutiable but which subsequently became exempted. However, he set aside the imposition of penalty and interest.3. The appellants have made a prayer for decision on merits. Their main grievance is that the Commissioner (Appeals), while ordering for reversal...

Lkp Merchant Financing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC58

1. This appeal arises out of order-in-original No. CC(P)/ SSS/ADJN/32/98 dated 21.8.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai.2. The appellants are a full-fledged money changer licensed by Reserve Bank of India. The appellants sold foreign currency to another FFMC called Hotel Zam Zam Money Changing Division. The latter is also licensed by RBI to deal in foreign currency, buy and sell.3. There have been regular transactions between the two FFMCs during the relevant period. The procedure followed by the appellants, for that matter, all FFMCs is, FC is sold to another FFMC against Indian currency when a pay order issued by a bank is tendered across the counter. After verifying the authenticity of the pay order, genuineness of the FFMC (whether licensed by RBI), who tendered it, FC is sold.Hotel Zam Zam Money Changing Dn. through their representatives presented five pay orders to the appellants totally amounting to Rs. 42,37,750/-, the latter deposited these Five pa...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hari Vishnu Packaging Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT396Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that the order was passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur in de novo proceedings where in redemption fine was imposed as Rs. 60,000/-. Inasmuch as in the first round of litigation, the redemption fine was higher, the appellant claimed the refund of the balance amount of fine earlier deposited by them. The same was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner vide his impugned order. The revenue filed, an appeal against the said order before Commissioner (Appeal), who rejected the same. Hence the present appeal.2. The Revenue's contention is that the refund of redemption fine is not Central Excise duty and as such is not covered by provision of 11B of the act. They have also contended that CEGAT while remanding the matter back to the Commissioner has not ordered for refund of redemption fine. As such the appellants contend that the redemption fine deposited on the higher side in the first round of litigation should not have been refunde...