Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Astro Optical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants imported Rectangular shaped blocks of what they declared on the Bill of Entries as "Raw Optical Glass" and sought the benefit of Notification No. 242/89 Sr. No. 6 of the Table thereto under which mentioned the item imported to be covered under this notification as:- However, since the notification exempted "good specified in the Table there under the falling under chapters 28.29.84, 85 or 90 and the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)", and because the classification of the said glass blocks under import arrived at by the lower authorities under chapter 70 and goods under chapter 70 were not eligible under the notification, the benefit of notification was denied.2. The Assistant Commissioner found and held the classification, to be, 'admittedly classifiable under chapter 70.' The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) confirmed the same, without hearing the appellants as he found:- "(iii) Regarding the plea on the classification of the impugned goods, ...

Shri H.S. Arora, Rajco Metal Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 8,09,313/- confirmed against M/s.Rajco Metal Inds. P. Ltd. along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. In addition penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Harjender Singh Arora and Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Anil Pratap Singh.2. Arguing on the application, Shri KP. Bulchandani, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the demand of duty was raised against by way of issuance of the show cause notice dated 11.1.2002 on the alleging contravention of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Rules 2001 read with Rule 57AB (1) of Central Excise Rules 1944. He submits that the said rule were not in existence at the time of alleging committance of the offences and as such, invocation of the same is not in accordance with the said settled position of law. As regards the merits he submits that the allegation are that out of enemerous invoices under which inputs were received by ...

Dr. Jivaraj Mehta Smarak Health Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above 2 appeals, arising out of the different Order-in-Original, involve common issue of eligibility to the benefit of Notification No.70/81 Cus dated 26.3.81 and Notification No.321/87 Dated : 22.9.87 to different medical equipments imported by the appellants and are hence taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.2. In Appeal No.622/94-Bom, the goods imported and sought clearance duty free was one set of Doppler unit which has been confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. One lakh on and on which duty demand of Rs.13,88,750/- has been confirmed and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed, denying the benefit of Notification No.70/81 Cus. (Order No. CC/16/94 ACC Dated : 04.01.94) 3. In Appeal No.650/98-BOM, the goods imported and sought clearance duty free were (I) Cardio VIO B-6/120 with standard accessories video monitor etc. (Switzerland origin), (2) Microwt M5 Holter recorder complete with accessories USA Origin and (3)...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Momai Brass Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the revenue has filed this appeal. Accordingly, I have heard Shri Bidhan Chandra, JDR appearing for the revenue. The respondents have made a prayer for decision on the basis of the written submission filed by them.2. As per facts and circumstances, the premises of transporters company was visited by the Preventive Officers of Central Excise on 02.02.2000 when a truck loaded with the excisable goods was found. They seized various goods loaded in the truck as the same were not accompanied with the invoices. The respondents, who were manufacturer of various brass items, claimed a part of the goods and contended that the same were cleared under the cover of invoice which could not be delivered to the transport authority on account of mistake on the part of the person handling the goods.3. On the above basis show cause notice was issued to the transporters proposing confiscation of the goods and also imposition of penal...

Reliable Poly Fib (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants seek modification of Order No. S/455/WZB/2003/C-1, dated 20-1-2004 directing pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs towards the duty demand, on the ground that Notification 82/92-C.E., dated 27-8-1992 under which the benefit of exemption from payment of basic customs duty alone was available, was amended in May 2001 vide Notification 28/2001-CE., dated 16-5-2001 so as to extend the benefit of exemption to the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to clearances of excisable goods by 100% EOU (like the applicants) to persons holding advance release order (the applicants who are a 100% EOU sold the goods to a person holding such order) and for this reason the applicants submit that the differential duty demand of additional duty, special additional duty etc. confirmed by the impugned order is not sustainable and therefore pre-deposit requires to be waived and recovery thereof stayed.2. Learned DR opposes the prayer; submitting...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil Umashankar Rungta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Mum.)329

1. These two block assessment appeals are filed by the Revenue and assessee respectively. These cross-appeals are filed against the order passed by the CIT(A), Thane, on 22nd Jan., 2001, and arise out of the block assessment completed under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961.2. The contentions raised by the Revenue as well as the assessee in these cross-appeals, relate to the various additions made by the AO.Those items can be dealt with separately. Therefore, we are considering these cross-appeals for the sake of convenience and clarity, one by one.4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs made by the AO and deleted by the CIT(A).5. The search and seizure action under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, was carried out on 28th July, 1998, at the residential premises of the assessee as well as at the business premises of M/s Sunvin Industries (P) Ltd. in which the assessee is one of the two directors holding 50 per cent share. During the...

Devlagan Sadloo Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR836; 2004(3)MhLj1008

C. K. Thakker, C.J.1. In both these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the action of the respondents directing them to vacate from the land bearing S. No. 41 as illegal and contrary to law. A further prayer is made that action of proposed demolition and rehabilitation of the petitioners without demarcating boundary line between Survey No. 41 and 42A (Part) of village Poisar is bad in law, and ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.2. It was the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of land bearing Survey No. 41 (Part) of village Poisar since more than two decades. Their possession is thus legal, valid and in accordance with law. The land was assessed by revenue authorities and had never been forest. No action, therefore, could have been taken against the petitioners.3. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance of a judgment and order passed by this Court on 15th September, 2003 in Writ Pet...

Sameer Surendra Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom328; 2004(4)ALLMR47; 2004(4)BomCR731

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the petitioner has prayed this Court to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside notification dated 28th February, 2003 and directing M/s. Ashok Infra, respondent No. 5 herein, to refund the entire amount collected by it towards collection of toll after it had received the amount to which it was otherwise entitled. An alternative prayer is made to carry out survey of vehicles 'in presence of the representative of the petitioner' and fix the rate of toll, term to recover the same and to direct respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to collect toll as per the report of the Expert Committee, A direction is also sought to investigate the transaction entered into by the State authorities with respondent No. 5 allowing it to collect toll by appropriate agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (C. B. I.).2. The case of the petitioner in the petition is that he is ...

Siddivinayank Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. National Council for Teache ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR696; 2004(4)MhLj508

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned Counsel, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. Deepa Chavan, the learned Counsel, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the facts and circumstances, by consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the National Council for Teacher's Education ('NCTE' for short), respondent No. 1 herein to accept the application form from the petitioner herein, for recognition of the institute for the Academic Year 2004-05 under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without insisting for the last date of 31st December, 2003, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to decide the same in accordance with law for grant of recognition for the Academic Year 2004-05.3. The case of the petiti...

Smt. Eufemia Clara Pereira and ors. Vs. Minguel Luis Gomes and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom202; 2004(4)ALLMR149

N.A. Britto, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.S. No. 54 /1980 have filed the present appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-10-1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao.2. The plaintiff in the said S.C.S. No. 54/80 and the said defendants had entered into an agreement dated 13-3-1979 for the sale of Blocks No. 3 and 4 constructed by them in plot No. 2 in the property known as 'Sirvodem' situated at Sirvodem, Navelim. The relevant Clauses of the said agreement were as follows :1. The said two Blocks bearing Nos. 3 and 4 with rustic part of 3 mt. on the northern side and 3.50 mts on the eastern side shall be sold free from any encumbrances whatsoever for the price of Rs. 45,000/-.2. The final sale shall be made till within two months from today and as earnest money and part payment the First Party acknowledges to have received from the Second Party a sum of rupees Thirty Three Thousand only for which they give full discharge for all legal purpose and the ba...