Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

S.K.F. India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 The appellant is an importer of Ball Bearing and Raw Material for manufacture of ball bearing. They entered into a Technical Collaboration/ Technical Assistance Agreement with affiliate Company AB SKF, Sweden, relevant clause in the object of the said Agreement is as under:- "AND WHEREAS SKF (India) is desirous of upgrading and improving Us product quality to reach the International Standards and has, therefore, requested AB SKF to grant its know-how and technical knowledge and information to upgrade and improve its production quality which A B SKI has agreed to grant on terms and conditions contained herein" "2. AB SKF hereby grants to SKF INDIA a non-transferable licence to design, manufacture and sell the upgraded products in India. Pursuant to the said licence, AB SKF shall disclose and supply the Know-how to SKF INDIA for its use in India in terms of this Agreement, SKF INDIA shall not be entitled to transfer the Know-how or use thereof to any third person without the prior w...

Megha Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc and Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant is a manufacturer of calcium silicate insulation blocks, an energy saving item, developed indigenously with local know-how and the appellant firm was established to carry out the manufacture of the item. The appellant took credit of the capital goods in terms of the provisions of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for various items of fabrication of machinery used to manufacture the excisable items, i.e. calcium silicate insulation blocks on which appropriate duty of excise was discharged by the appellant. The appellant was served with a show cause notice proposing as to why the credit of capital goods availed of in respect of M.S. angles, M.S.plates etc. should not be disallowed considering the same as falling outside the purview of Rule 57Q. The appellant submitted to the adjudicating authority that since the items were used to manufacture the capital goods which is used for manufacture of final product a situation is aptly covered by the provisions of Rule 57...

Nirmalabai Jaisingh Patel Vs. Poonam Siyaram Maharaj Vyas

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR642; 2005(2)BomCR553; 2005(2)MhLj479

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Shri Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Shareef Advocate for the respondent.2. Rule, Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14-10-2004 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 287 of 2004, whereby the said Court has dismissed the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 287 of 2004 filed before it assailing the order dated 30-8-2004 passed by Small Causes Court, Nagpur, issuing warrant of possession in Regular Civil Suit No. 568 of 2003. The respondent has filed caveat.4. The present respondent is stated to be a tenant of petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that respondent voluntarily vacated the suit premises by accepting amount of Rs. 50,000/- for that purpose but after vacation of premises and receipt of amount, the tenant out of greed filed applica...

Kamlakar B. Rane Vs. Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR656; 2005(4)BomCR419

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order in Revision Petition No. 4 1980 with Misc. Petition No. 1 of 1980 passed by Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Maharashtra State Bombay (Exh. A), a sale certificate dated 24th March, 1982 issued by the settlement Commissioner for compensation to properties-cum-custodian of Evacuee property Maharashtra State and order in Application No. 1 of 1982 passed by Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department dated 15th November 1985. These proceedings are under Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short E.P. Act) and Displaced Persons, Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short D.P. Act).2. The writ petition was directed to be heard along with the first appeal because the first appeal arises out of a judgement and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1980 filed by respondent No. 5 in the writ petition against the petiti...

Nagpur Land Developers Association Through Its President and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj881

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. Even after expiry of more than half a century to adoption of our Constitution inter alia having a goal of social, economic and political justice, this part of the country still sees a large number of suicides by the farmers out of desperation and utter poverty. The lack of mercy of Rain God coupled with the lack of political will of our leaders to develop this part of the country has resulted in these consequences. This part of the country has remained underdeveloped even though the World has reached in 21st Century and our country also has made overall rapid growth in various spheres.2. Six years after adopting of Constitution i.e. by the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 the provisions of Article 371 was introduced inter alia providing for special provisions in respect of the State of Maharashtra and Gujarat. Sub-clause (2)(a) of Article 371 provides for establishment of separate Development Board for Vidarbha Region and creation of a necessary fund for deve...

Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR206; (2005)107BOMLR665

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. This group of writ petitions is raising a common question of interpretation of reg. 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Regulations, 1977. It is rather unfortunate that inspite of number of judgments delivered by the Division Benches of this Court the challenge raised in the present petition has not yet died down. This Rule 7 has been the subject matter of interpretation of at least seven Division Benches of this Court. However, every time a challenge based on a different facet or different aspect of the interpretation of the said regulation is raised and thus it requires to be once again considered afresh. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are once again called upon to consider the challenge and further interpret the said regulation.2. All these writ petitions are almost identical in so far as facts are concerned. Thus, we take as a sample case facts of Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1996. The facts of this writ petition in so far they are germane to the issue of...

Kundan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded Rs. 22,73,611/- and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the applicant. The issue involved relates to remission of duty on semi-finished goods destroyed in Hoods on 26.6.2002.2. The applicant is a manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The demand arose out of the fact that the applicant took cenvat credit on the packing material and dyes and tools which were later destroyed in floods. It is the department's contention that since the cenvat credit on packing material and dyes and tools was already taken but the inputs were not used in the manufacture of final products but were lost in floods, cenvat credit taken should be reversed. The applicant contends that the formula adopted by the Commissioner in working out the cenvat credit contained in the semi-finished goods which were destroyed is arbitra...

C.C. (import) Vs. Titex India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC10

i) The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who has upheld the observation of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs that even though the Royalty payment is to be made in future, the subject Royalty is not related to the imported goods and also there is no condition of sale attached with the agreements, therefore the Royalty payment is not covered by Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988. Accordingly, the authority vide Order-in-Original dated 27.4.2001 ordered to accept the invoice value under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. ii) The Adjudicating Authority while accepting the transaction value under Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 has ignored the legal fact that it is mandatory to make addition in terms of Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 with regard to ineluctability or otherwise of the technical know how fees and or royalty paid / payable by the Indian Company to the foreign collaborator. iii) The Indian ...

Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC238

1. Heard both sides. M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. had imported glazed newsprint in reels and claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading 4802.60 and benefit of general exemption under 121 at Nil rate of Customs duty. The adjudicating authority has held that all types of newsprints, with effect from 1.1.96, were covered under heading 4801 as per definition of newsprint given in chapter note 3 to chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and charged import duty @ 10% under Notification Nos. 83/96 and 84/96 Customs, both dated 29.10.96.2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Sahar Airport, Mumbai, who in turn rejected the appeal.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that no distinction between glazed or standard newsprint is made in. the Customs Tariff heading 4801, which is covering all types of newsprints. All types of newsprints are covered by specific Notification No. 83/96 dated 29.10.96, attracting ...

Rajeev Ship Breakers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duties demanded arise out of a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority. The demands itself arose out of a common order passed by the lower adjudicating authority finalizing provisional assessments made from time to time.2. The issue relates to classification of bunkers/oil, provisions and stores on board vessels brought for breaking their valuation and assessment to duty. The department contends that the above said goods have to be separately classified and assessed under the respective headings and not under the heading meant for the vessel in terms of CBEC instructions contained in Circular No. 37/96-CE dated 3.7.1996.The lower adjudicating authority arrived at the quantities of these goods on the basis of Import General Manifests (IGMs) filed by the Master when the vessels were brought for breaking. For the purpose of arriving at the value of such sto...