Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments

Satyendra M. Sawant, Kiran M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the above appeal is allowed in view of the explanation given by the Proprietor that he had suffered heart attack on 7^th January 2004 and thereafter under went angiography and advised surgery.2. The adjudicating authority has imposed penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Sahil Industries, Rs. 3 lakhs on M/s. Kiran M. Choksi, Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Satyendra Sawant, Proprietor of Sahil Industries and penalty of Rs. 50.000/- on Shri Pragnesh Jain. CHA employee. The case of the department is that Sahil Industries obtained advance licence for import of Polyester Fabrics/Cotton Fabrics/HDPE. falsely declaring themselves as manufacturer-exporter, that they imported a number of consignments of polyester fabrics/cotton fabrics/HDPE and cleared them duty free against Advance Licence and then sold them in the domestic market, contrary to the condition that duty free import was permissible only for use of the imported materials in the man...

Pragnesh Jain, Satyendra M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time, it is found possible to dispose off the appeals at this stage after waiving pre-deposit of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appellants before us are S/Shri Pragnesh Jain, Satyendra M. Sawant and Kiran M. Choksi.2. The issue pertains to imposition of penalties on the appellants under Section 112 and Section 114A of the Customs Act. Shri Pragnesh Jain is an employee of a CHA firm M/s. Impex International who handled the consignments of polyester fabrics/cotton fabrics and HDPE imported under advance licence, which were later diverted to domestic market in violation of the conditions under which clearances were allowed dut\ free. The allegation against him is that he abetted the offence committed by M/s. Sahil Industries in whose name the said goods were imported. In the impugned order, the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs Under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Shri Saryendra Sawant on whom a similar penalty was imposed, was...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kundan Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT398Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide his impugned order, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has confirmed the demands against the respondent raised on the ground that the amount of 8% under provision of rule 57CC paid and collected by the respondents from their customers is required to be deposited under provision of 11D of the Act but has set aside the personal penalty imposed upon them on the ground that there is no valid ground for imposition of penalties. The revenue is aggrieved with the said part of the impugned order vide which the penalty has been set aside.Hence the present appeal.2. It is seen that the respondents had also challenged the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal, and vide order dated 24/9/03, the matter stands remanded to the authorities with direction that wherever the amount have been shown as having been recovered under rule 57CC the provision of 11 D will not get attracted. As regards the personal penalty, Shri.D.D. Gawalani, Ld. Advocate appearing for the r...

Reverend Father Agnelo Gracies Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR308; [2005(104)FLR902]; 2005(2)KLT165; (2005)IILLJ132Bom; 2005(1)MhLj693

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. St. Pius College is a religious seminary of the faithful of Christ at Mumbai. The seminary has been registered on 7th December, 1988 as a religious charitable trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Court has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Rector of the seminary. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed on 4th November, 1991, a demand notice dated 23rd January, 1992 and to a communication dated 10th March, 1992 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for the States of Maharashtra and Goa. In proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has issued a determination of an amount due and payable by the seminary as contribution on account of the Priests rendering services in the seminary under the provisions of the Act, the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952, the Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 and th...

Ramdas Maroti Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj453

V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1993 is filed by Ramdas Thakur original accused No. 2 challenging his conviction under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code directing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Though the sentences are ordered separately they were to be suffered concurrently.2. Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1993 is filed by the State seeking setting aside of the acquittal of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1993 for the offences under Sections 302, 342, 323, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and seeking their conviction under those sections.3. Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 1993 is for similar prayers by the complainant. In view of the fact that a substantive appeal is filed by the State challenging the acquittal the revision application becomes inconsequential. It is accordingly dismissed.4. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appella...

Sunil Shrirang Phad Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR442

Naik A.B., J.1. Heard Shri Raghuwanshi, Advocate instructed by Shri Bachate, Advocate for petitioner and Shri E.P. Sawant, Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is the State Election Commission.Shri Kendre, Residence Deputy Collector, Beed is present in this Court. His presence is recorded. He has produced record of the proceedings before this Court.2. Rule. Shri Sawant, learned Government Pleader waives service of notice to respondents 1 to 3. As notice to respondent No. 4 is concerned, he is not necessary party, as in this petition the main challenge is to the order passed by the Collector under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. By consent of the parties, we take rule for final hearing forthwith.4. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by Collector, Beed on 20th July, 2004 disqualifying him from the post of Councillor of Municipa...

Binani Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT450Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The challenge in the present appeal is only to penalty of Rs. 26,800/- imposed under the provision of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of late deposit of service tax and late filing of returns. There is a delay of 268 days in depositing the return and the penalty has been imposed in terms of the said Section @ of Rs. 100 per day.2. It is the contention of the appellant through their authorised representative Shri K. Shashi Kumar that the tax was deposited by them on quarterly basis instead of monthly basis. The above act was on account of the advice given by the consultant. Reference has been drawn to the letter written by the said consultant stating that the tax is to deposited by the 25th day of the month following the quarter. Further inasmuch as they realised that the tax is to be filed on monthly basis, they rectified their mistake and paid the interest also. In the circumstance, since there was no mala fide intention on their part, he prayed for reduction of ...

Aarti Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Though the application for extension of stay has been listed today, I feel that the appeal itself can be disposed off in as much as the issue is decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.2. The appellant's have exported a consignment of Di-methyl Sulphate which is a final product. The same was found to be defective by the buyer who had returned the said consignment. The same was cleared by them on payment of duty on re-importation. They had taken the credit of the said CVD and reprocessed the goods & cleared the same again on payment of duty.3. The modvat credit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the re-imported material cannot be considered as inputs in as much as the same was finished product itself. I find that the issue is no more res-integra and has been decided by the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE Merut v. Tin Manufacturing Co. and CCE Meerut v.Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. reported in [2000(39)RLT197(CEGAT-LB)] = (2002-TIOL-172-CESTAT-DEL-...

Shri. Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Constitute ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR297(Bom); 2005(1)BomCR511; 2005(1)MhLj884

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed under Section 14(2) and Section 15(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia contending that the mandate of the term as arbitrator be terminated because of undue delay in proceeding with the appeal proceedings pending before him.2. A contract executed by and between the Petitioner and Respondent for the construction of accommodation for senior Officers in J.N.P. Township. On 5.7.1995 the work order was issued providing the date of completion as 30.9.1997. However, there were differences and disputes between the parties in the execution of the work. On 1.11.1999 petitioner forwarded their claims to the respondent. On 16.4.1998 according to Petitioner work was completed. It is the case of the Petitioner that however, payment was withheld because of Central Vigilance Committee enquiry and therefore, the money which was due and payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner were not released.3. On 11.1.2000 petitioner applied to ...

Union of India (Uoi), Represented Through Chief Engineer Vs. Arctic (I ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR314(Bom); 2005(1)BomCR505; (2005)107BOMLR917; 2005(1)MhLj637

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is challenging an award dated 27.3.2004 under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Some of the few facts in the present case are as under :2. A contract was executed by and between the Petitioner and Respondent in respect of the work of replacing of A.C. placed at INS Karanja. Under the terms of the contract stipulated date for commencement of the work was 30.7.1996 and stipulated date for completion was 20.1.1998. The work however was completed on 1.10.1999. In view of certain disputes and differences between the parties an arbitration Clause being Clause No. 17 of IAFW 2249 was invoked on 27.8.2002 by the respondent herein. On 28.8.2002 letter was addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief for appointment of arbitrator by the Respondents enclosing therewith the claims which are required to be referred to an Arbitrator. On 21.11.2002 an application under Section 11 for appointment of arbitrator was filed before this court being Application...