Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Davinder Exports and R.K. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT911Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present appeals are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the appellants appeal against the order-in-original was rejected. In the order-in-original, the adjudicating authority enhanced the value of machines imported by the appellants and consequent to mis-declaration of value of imported machines, the said machines were subjected to confiscation with an option to clear the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Besides, penalty of Rs. 70,000/- was imposed on M/s.Davinder Exports and redemption fine of Rs. 1,65,000/- and penalty of Rs. 65,000/- was imposed on M/s. R.K. Apparels. Besides, a penalty of Rs. 70,000/- was also imposed in each case, on Shri Gurbax Singh, who was the indenter of the appellants in relation to the imports of the said machines.3. The appellants are not contesting the value enhancement ordered by the original authority. The Ld. Advocate drew my attention to the statement of the indenter Shri Gurbax Si...

Asoj Soft Caps Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants cleared certain medicaments products duty free and others on duty. However, they obtained and availed credit on certain inputs which was used in relation to manufacture of the duty free medicaments cleared. They were not entitled to the credit of Rs. 46,65,201/- on the inputs so utilized in duty free medicaments. They reversed the credit in April 97/October 97. A Show Cause Notice was used on 15.4.98 seeking the reversed of ineligible credit on the very same goods and penalty.The Commissioner on finding that an amount ineligible credit was Rs. 46,65,209 and was since reversed/paid the ordered its appropriation and imposed a penalty of same amount under Rule 57 1(4), Rs. one lakh under Section 173Q (1) along with interest. He ordered the confiscation of Plant and Machinery under Rule 173Q (2) and gave an option to redeem the same under Rule 173Q (2) and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 209A on Mahendre P. Jain, Deputy Manager. Hence this appeal. a) Since the amo...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Neogen Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal, whereby the order of the adjudicating authority was set aside. In the adjudication order, the claim of the respondents for modvat credit of Rs. 62,037.25 was rejected and the demand for that amount was confirmed. Consequent to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the revenue, revenue has filed the instant appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondents cleared certain finished goods from their factory without payment of duty by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 191BB of Central Excise Rules, for further use in the manufacture of drugs, to be eventually exported by the customer (M/s. BDH Pharmaceuticals) under the DEEC scheme. The respondents had taken modvat credit under Rule 57A of the duty paid on the indigenous inputs used in the manufacture of said finished goods cleared under Rule 191BB. Following the instructions contained in Trade Notice No.46/B.III/Gen(24)94 date...

Kirti Maganlal and Co., Mr. Kirti Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT409Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are directed against a common order passed by the commissioner of Customs. Hence heard together.3. The appeal of the main appellants M/s. Kirti Maganlal and Company is directed against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad whereunder eight gold bars valued at Rs. 3,80,000/-have been subjected to absolute confiscation and penalties of various amounts under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 have been imposed. The said order is under challenge in the instant appeal. From the facts enumerated in the order in appeal, it is reveled that, DRI had seized 78 pieces of foreign marked gold bars under regular punchanama dated 16.1.1998 under a reasonable belief that their importation is illicit and the said gold is liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act.4. The matter had earlier reached the Tribunal and was remanded to the Commissioner for considering the submissions of various noticees. The present appeal is a denovo adjud...

Addl C.i.T., Spl. Rg 15 Vs. Ashok Alco Chem Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)1000

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue and is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 5th February 2001 for Assessment Year 1998-99. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unutilized MODVAT credit of Rs. 25,93,773." 3. Both the parties admitted that this ground is admitted in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd., 261 ITR 275. Therefore, we find no merit in this ground and the same is dismissed. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O to allow deduction Under Section 80-I of Rs. 90,95,971 as claimed by assessee ignoring the fact that the deduction claimed pertain to three units as under and there was no profit in respect of 2nd and 3rd units after adjusting the set-off of brought forward losses of the same.-Acidic Acid Unit, Malad Rs. 13,...

Shri Rajendra Jonko Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ3703; 2005(1)MhLj201

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Agrawal for the accused/appellant, Mr. Satpute for Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Shringarpure, APP, for the State.2. This appeal is filed by the accused against his conviction in C.B.I. Special Case No. 27 of 1990 by judgment dated 18th April 2001 by which he came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months.3. Only one submission was made by Mr. Agrawal in this appeal. According to him and from the record it is clear that the offence of amassing the assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 4,61,000/- and odd was of the check period from 15.11.1979 till 12.11.1987. Therefore, according to Mr. Agrawal, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was applicable. Even the charge under Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1...

Mahadeo Laxman Kumare and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ681; 2005(2)BomCR935; 2004(4)MhLj266

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. In spite of the service no-one is appearing in this matter, on behalf of the respondent, at any point of time.This appeal has been preferred by the original applicants against the original non-applicant/respondent herein, and thereby, challenged the judgment dated 4th August, 1988 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha, in Original Railway Claims No. 16 of 1986, whereby, their application for compensation was dismissed in toto.2. One Hemraj Mahadeo Kumare, aged 20 years, was travelling in 385 down Bhusawal-Nagpur Passenger on 5th September, 1986, which met with an accident near Pulgaon, as it hit by the derailed wagons, died in the said accident on the spot. Accordingly, Panchnama was also recorded and prepared. The said deceased Hemraj was the only son of the appellants and was a student of R. S. Bidkar College, Hinganghat, studying in Part-I of the B.Com. Course. The appellants are belonging ...

Mansaram Sampat Patil Since Deceased Through His Lrs. Smt. Banubai Man ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR(SC)533; 2004(4)MhLj1105

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. A common question of law emerges for adjudication in all these Letters Patent Appeals and as such the said appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The admitted positions of fact which. crystallises the common question are : (a) The writ petitions from which the present Letters Patent Appeals arise were filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court invoking jurisdiction only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (b) The learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has either allowed or dismissed the writ petitions. (c) The writ petitions preferred before the learned Single Judge invoked the powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India simpliciter without any mention of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No grievance of violation of fundamental rights was made and no writ or direction in the like nature was sought.1A. In the ab...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Fahmida Begum Wd/O Mohammad Khan a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)ACC366; 2005(2)ALLMR610; [2005(105)FLR222]; 2005(1)MhLj1045

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Heard.This appeal has been preferred by the original Non-applicant No. 2/Appellant herein/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the Insurance Company') and thereby, challenged the order dated 9th March, 1989 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1922 (for short 'WC Act') in W.C.A. Case No. 89/1988, whereby, the original Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, appellants herein, and respondent No. 5 have been directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the applicants. It is also observed that the amount of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from 30th May, 1982 till the amounts are actually paid to the applicant as per this order.2. On 13th May, 1984 at about 9.00 a.m. the vehicle No. MTG 3901 driven by one Ahmed Khan, met with an accident and Ahmed Khan died. The original applicants are mother, sisters and brother of the said deceased. The respondent No. 5 is the owner of the said vehicle. The vehicle was admit...

Suman Arjun Shegokar Vs. Prasad Gopalrao Chirkuri and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)ACC127; 2005(2)BomCR955

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard.The present appeal has been filed by the original claimant No. 1/appellant herein, against the driver/original N.A. No. I/respondent No. 1 herein, owner/original N.A. No. 2/respondent No. 2 herein, original N.A. No. 3/ respondent No. 3 herein/(Insurance Company) and made formal party to the original claimant No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein and thereby, challenged the judgment dated 29th March, 1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (for short 'Tribunal') in Motor Vehicle Case No. 45 of 1983, whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation.However, the claim of the original claimant No. 2 respondent No. 4 minor daughter of the deceased Arjun Shegokar was allowed.2. One Arjun Ukarda Shegokar, husband of the appellant and father of the respondent No. 4, died on 2nd July, 1980 in motor accident at Akola. The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1. The vehicle was admittedly, insured with re...