Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Mukundbhai Vs. Banthia Trading Co. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR844; II(2005)BC348

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.2.1990 of the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1983, whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree granted by the Trial Court directing the defendants to pay the amount of Rs. 9,563/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of suit till realisation, has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of the said amount has been dismissed.2. Briefs facts are required to be stated as under:The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 9,563/- on the contentions that defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendant No. 2 is a partner. The partnership firm is carrying on the business in cloth at Raipur. On 14.1.1974 the defendant No. 2 on behalf of the firm obtained the loan of Rs. 7,000/- for the cloth business from the plaintiff by execu...

Fitrite Packers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 55,32,538/- we find that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides.2. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand on the ground that the goods, namely, printed paper (printed with designs and logos) fall for classification under CETA sub-heading 4811.90 attracting duty @ 15% ad valorem, rejecting the appellant's claim for classification under CETA sub-heading 4901.90 attracting nil rate of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of Rs. 47 lakhs, in the application filed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with the appeal filed before him. The applicant's modification application was dismissed by him and he further went on to discuss partly on the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal filed before him upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner.3. On hearing both sid...

Commr. of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Gazebo Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT421Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the present appeals, the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai who has dropped the proceedings raised in show cause notice dated 26.1.1996 proposing recovery of Customs duty of Rs. 1,20,22,428/- ( Basic Customs Duty of Rs. 78,83,559.54 and Addl.Duty of Rs. 41,38,868.58) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 from M/s. Gazebo Industries Ltd. on the ground that they had sold C.R.Sheets imported duty free from Russia under DEEC Scheme in the local market without completing export obligations imposed under the DEEC books, proposing confiscation of C.R.Sheets seized from M/s. Gupta Udyog , Taloja and M/s. Seth Metal Processors, Taloja and from the premises of M/s. Raiyani Industries, Goa, M/s. Shrijee Sales Corporation, Pune, M/s. Balkrishna Enterprises, Pune and M/s. Yogi Corporation, Sangli under Section 111(o) and proposing penalty on M/s.Gazebo Industries Ltd., Shri Mohinder Singh, Joint Managing Director of M/s. Gazebo Industries and Shri Tabarak...

Rajani Silk Mills, Raghunandan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the stay petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the authorities below vide which duty of Rs. 5,62,311/- has been confirmed against the main appellants M/s. Raghunandan Dyeing & Ptg. Ltd. alongwith imposition of personal penalty of identical amount on the findings of clandestine processing and removal M.M. Fabrics. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been imposed on Shree Rani Prasad Bhavarlal Jhavar director of the company under the provision of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and penalty of Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- has been imposed on M/s. Rohit Silk Mills and Rajani Silk Mills respectively.2. After hearing Shri K.I. Vyas, learned advocate and Shri Bidhan Chandra, learned J.D.R., I find that the findings of the clandestine removal is based upon the entry made in the grey fabrics register of the processing unit and the shortage of the same during the course of preventive checks...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prince Multiplast Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT460Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute involved in the present appeal is as to whether "cooled water cooling twin" falling under Tariff Heading 84.18 is eligible as capital good in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The modvat credit was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise holding that the same is in accessory of their main processing plant i.e. 'plastic injection moulding machine' and hence entitled for modvat credit as capital I goods. The revenue filed an appeal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Commissioner (appeals). The said authority rejected the appeal, after considering the detailed manufacturing process and after taking into consideration the CBEC's Circular and also the various decisions of the Tribunal. For better appreciation para 3, 4, and 5 of the order which are produced below :- I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the grounds of review, the findings of the adjudicating authority and the law n the subject. On regardi...

The State of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department Vs. Sind Co-op ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR231; 2004(3)MhLj626

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The substantial question of law that arises in the present case is thus:Whether the Sanad that was executed by the Collector of Pune for and on behalf of the Governor of Maharashtra in favour of the Respondent (Exhibit 75) can be regarded as a conveyance within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, as it stood at the material time?2. On 20th October 1949, an agreement was executed between the Respondent of the one part and the Government of Bombay of the other under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The agreement recites that the Respondent is a Society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, established inter alia wit the object of carrying on the trade of building, buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with Co-operative principles. Respondent No. 1 applied to the State Government for the acquisition of certain lands situated at Aundh. In the City of Pune so as to provide housing...

Gambar Plastics and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR400; 2004(3)MhLj385

V.C. Daga, J. 1. The dispute in the petition relates to tariff classification as to whether the product 'Split Profile' can be classified as sheets/sheeting of PVC and charged to duty under erstwhile T.I. 15A (2) and under Heading No. 3920.12 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986 ('the CET Act, 1986' for short) as contended by the Revenue or, as other articles of plastic under erstwhile tariff Item No. 15A(2) and Heading No. 3926.90 as such exempted under Notification No. 53/88 dated 1st March, 1988 as contended by the petitioners. The Facts :2. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm ('the firm' for short), inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing PVC Pipes, tubes and profiles of different shapes including subject product 'Split Profile'. The petitioner-firm is duly registered as a small scale industry with the Directorate of Small Scale Industries of the State. The petitioner-firm since inception of its manufacturing activities i.e. from the year 1980 had ...

Abdul Hamid Abdul Kadar Vs. Mohamed Hasankhan Amirkhan Since Deceased ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj973

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A decree for possession was passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune in a suit instituted in 1977, on 13th July 1987. The decree has been affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Pune on 21st July 1990. This Second Appeal was admitted on 12th September 1990. The substantial question of law which arises for the consideration of the Court is as to whether the suit for possession that was instituted by ,the original plaintiff was barred by limitation.2. The suit premises consist of Block No. 3 in a house bearing No. 404/400 situated at Rasta Peth Road, Pune. Block No. 3, was in possession of one Lalkhan, the father-in-law of the original defendant. Lalkhan had six brothers and the house has been purchased in February 1919 by the eldest brother Ahmedkhan. Upon the death of Ahmedkhan, the property was transferred in the name of Usman Khan and was purchased by a deed of sale dated 2nd September 1946 by Amir Khan, the father of the original plaintiff...

Sushilabai W/O Radhakisan Bhagwat and ors. Vs. Laxman Balwant Kalaskar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj864

A.S. Bagga, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1994 passed by learned 4th Addl. District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1985 which arose from the judgment and decree dated 7-1-1985 passed by learned Civil Judge, J.D. in Regular Civil Suit No. 57 of 1983.2. A suit was brought by respondent, original plaintiff against the present appellants, original defendants, for redemption of mortgage. It was the case of plaintiff in the suit that the plaintiff was in need of certain amount for payment of tagai and Society's dues. He, therefore, approached father of defendant No. 2 namely; Radhakishan Bapuji (deceased) for Rs. 400/-. The document came to be executed and ancestral house of the plaintiff was sold conditionally for 10 years and possession of it was given to Radhakishan. In the document it was written that the plaintiff will have right of purchase of property on payment of the amount and if the amount was not paid within st...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. M.V. Damodar Dr. Albert and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR787; I(2005)BC384

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. All these suits have been filed by the Union of India and ICICI Bank Ltd. for recovery of different amounts advanced to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and for securing these amounts five vessels owned by the defendant No. 2 were mortgaged. The learned Counsel appearing for both sides state that facts and law involved in these suits are identical and therefore all these suits can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. All these suits were originally filed by the Government of India's Shipping Development Fund Committee, a body constituted under the Unamended Merchant Shipping Act, against the shipping company 'Damodar Bulk Carriers Limited and each one of the above suits is directed against the vessels Damodar Krishna, Damodar Tanabe, Damodar Kaveri, Damodar Tasaka and Damodar Ganga. It may be mentioned here that the Merchant Shipping Act was amended and Part IV which dealt with the Shipping Development Fund was omitted and under the amending Act, Shipping Credit and Inv...