Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai

2. On considering that duty demand has been made on strips of medicines brought back for reprinting the lower prices as per Drug Price Orders and such claims, prima facie, cannot be effected in terms of Boards Instructions No. 576/13/2001-CX., dated 16-5-2001 full waiver of pre-deposit is called for and granted and recovery stayed.3. The early hearing plea made granted and the matter kept for final hearing on 26-5-2004....

Ksh International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT575Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are job workers. They receive paper covered stripes from suppliers after following the provisions of Notification No. 214/86 and Rule 57F(3) procedures. The job work is returned to the supplier. Waste generated during the process of job working, along with waste generated during the course of the appellants own production is being cleared on payment of duty under concessional rate of SSI under Notification No.1/93. Demands were issued on full quantity of waste/scraps of copper cleared during the period June, 96 to July, 96 denying them the benefit of SSI rate of duty, duty demands were made and confirmed. (a) Waste and scrap of copper generated during the manufacture of appellants own goods has to be cleared at concessional rate under the provisions of Notification 1/93. (b) Waste and Scraps generated out of modvat inputs received under Notification No. 214/86 and Rule 57F(3) are not goods of the job worker and duty demands on such waste/scrap inputs have to be directed ...

Liberty Phasphate Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri J.C. Patel, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and interalia submitted that the adjudicating authority has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 23,95,114/- and imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC on the Company and a penalty of Rs. 10,10,000/- on the Director Shri. Shakil Z.Memon. The Counsel submitted that the appellants are engaged in production and clearance of Fertilizers. In order to produce the fertilizers, furnace oil is used as fuel and the same was obtained by the Petitioners, without payment of duty under C.T.2 certificate under the provisions of Serial Entry No. 11 of the Table to the Notification 4/97-C.E. dated 1.3.97 from time to time and it was accounted for and used as fuel in production of the fertilizers.The Officers of DRI visited the appellants unit on 6.2.2002 and observed that the said furnace oil procured by the appellant under the provisions of Serial Entry No. 11 of the Table to the Notification 4/97-C.E. dated 1.3.97 under C.T....

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals ) who has accepted the plea of the assessee before him that MRP Printed on multi pack of soaps is to be considered for payment of duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in terms of CBEC Circulars No. 673/64/2002-CX dt. 28.10.2002, and not the MRP printed on individual tablet of the soap as held by the Adjudicating authority particularly when multi piece packs wee packed in such a way that each individual soap could not easily be detached and sold.2. On hearing both we not that the present case has come up after remand by the Tribunal in its order reported in [2003 (158) E.L.T. 357 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein it has been set out in paragraph 2 that the CBEC Circular No. 639/30/2002-CX dt. 24.05.2002 would be interpreted in favour of the assessee prima facie. Remand was necessitated for the reason that the Circular above mentioned was considered by the lower authority who had dism...

State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. N.C.K. Sons Export

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)BC244

1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant Bank namely State Bank of Saurashtra being aggrieved by order dated 17th February, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad on Exhibit No. R/20 in Original Application No. 65 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the application of the defendants/respondents herein, wherein the defendants had prayed that the various documents mentioned in the application be impounded as they were not sufficiently stamped and hence, they were not admissible in evidence unless the applicant-Bank paid stamp duty in terms of Article 6 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The learned Presiding Officer rejected the said contention of the defendants with respect to other documents mentioned in the application but partly allowed the application by observing that document placed at page Nos. 44 to 46 of the paper book was not sufficiently stamped and as such was not ...

In Re: Larsen and Toubro Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]121CompCas523(Bom); (2004)3CompLJ304(Bom); [2004]54SCL461(Bom)

Anoop V. Mohta, J.Introduction :1. Global competitiveness :'The integration of the manufacturing and other facilities of the cement business of the petitioner-company into the resulting company and the eventual acquisition of management control of the resulting company by Grasim, will contribute to enhanced global competitiveness for the resulting company, thereby increasing its ability to compete in domestic and international markets. Increased competitiveness would contribute to the enhancement of future business of the petitioner-company and thereby contributing to the wealth of the shareholders of the petitioner-company.'2. The scheme of arrangement in question is revolving around the above objective of the companies.3. This is a company petition under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act in the matter of a scheme of arrangement between Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (for short 'L & T' or 'demerged company' or 'petitioner-company' or 'transferor company') and Ultra Tech Cemco Ltd. (for s...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Meharunnisa Mahamadalli Khot (Since ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR30; 2004(6)BomCR301; 2005(1)MhLj290

P.V. Kakade, J.1. This appeal preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Alibag in L.A.R. No. 7 of 1982, wherein enhanced compensation was allowed to the respondent claimant at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq. mtr. as against the enhanced compensation granted by the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.L.A.O.') at Rs. 5.50 per sq. mtr. alongwith statutory benefits under different components under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. Heard Shri Tated, the learned A.G.P. for the State and learned counsel Shri Irani for the respondent.The S.L.A.U., Metro Centre No. 1, Panvel, Dist. Raigad acquired lands of the respondent for New Bombay Metro Project admeasuring 60.7 Areas i.e. 6070 sq. mtrs. for the public purpose noted above. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act came to be issued on 3.2.1970 and the date of the award was 27.11.1981 wher...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Ramdas Dhaya Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR173; 2004(6)BomCR418; 2005(1)MhLj352

P.V. Kakade, J. 1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment and order date 4.2.1992 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 388 of 1987 granting enhanced compensation to the claimant respondent at the rate of Rs. 11/- per sq.mtr. alongwith additional components contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') as against the award of Rs. 1/- per sq.mtr. granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short, S.L.A.O.').2. As against this, the claimant has filed cross-objection claiming that the award of the learned Trial judge was not reflecting the true market price of the impugned property and, therefore, he claimed that the just and proper market value of the property would be Rs. 15/- per sq.mtr.3. I have heard Shri Tated, the learned A.G.P. for the appellant and Shri patil, learned counsel for the respondent claimant. Perused the record.4. The claimant bears Survey No...

Shri Ashok Gangaram Katkar Vs. Prama Industries

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR383; (2005)107BOMLR666

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal arises out of the decision rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 24th May 1989 rejecting an application filed by the Appellant for compensation on account of an injury alleged to have been sustained in the course of employment. The Appellant was engaged by the Respondent in 1984. As would be noted in greater detail hereinafter, no letter of appointment or specific designation was given to the Appellant. The muster roll which was produced before the Trial Court in the course of the evidence, specifically leaves the nature of work and designation blank. According to the Appellant, he was working as a helper since 1984 and was earning an amount of Rs. 10/- per day as wages. On 20th October 1985, the Appellant was on duty at 9 a.m. and was working on a Power cutting machine. An accident occurred during the course of which, the fingers on the hand of the Appellant got cut in the machine. The Appellant lost three fingers of his left han...

Keshrimal Jivji Shah and anr. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC6; 2004(4)BomCR842; [2004]122CompCas831(Bom); (2005)193CTR(Bom)229; [2005]273ITR451(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj893

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent No. 1 waives service. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been served. However, they have not appeared in the Courts below as well. Therefore, in our view, petition can be disposed of at this stage. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent.2. Two questions arise for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order dated 9th February 2004 in Misc. Appeal No. 396 of 2003 passed by the learned Chairperson of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal).3. The questions are :--i) is transfer of an immovable property in contravention of a prohibitory or injunction order of a Court illegal or void;ii) Whether and to what extent, the procedure under Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable in execution of a recovery certificate issued under Section 19(7) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short RDB Act)4. To answer these questio...