Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. S.K. Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT393Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For a proper understanding and appreciation of the dispute in this case, it is necessary to record certain facts.2. M/s. S.K. Corporation filed warehousing Bills of Entry seeking clearance of HDPE Blow (sic) Grade The price of the goods were shown as US $ 1010 PMT CIF. The Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla vide his Order-in-Original dt. 19.8.90 confiscated the goods under Section 111 (d) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, enhanced the value of the goods to US$ 1335 PMT CIF, resulting in differential duty of Rs. 45,76,290/-. He imposed redemption fine of Rs. 7 lakhs on the importer and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each on the importer and Shri K.B. Bhandari and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri P.T. Valia. The importers abandoned the goods and relinquished title thereto. In the meanwhile they obtained order of partial waiver of pre-deposit of penalties in stay application filed in Appeal No. 3196/1990 (filed by Shri P.T. Valia and appeal Nos.3197-98/1990 filed by the importer and Shr...

Mistukoshi thewmowares Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 91,83,525/-together with interest and penalty of Rs. 9,18,000/-, we found that it was possible to dispose of the appeal itself and hence after waiving the pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The case of the Department has brought out in the show cause notice is that the appellants herein had imported consignment of goods under the DEEC Scheme duty free in terms of Notification No. 203/92-/CUS dt.19.5.1992 against the advance licence and availing input stage credit, resulting in violation of condition No. V(A) of the Notification and hence the appellants were required to pay duty on the imported goods.3. We find that although the show cause notice refers to details of import as per the annexure thereto, annexure does not contain any details either as to the description of goods imported or a bill of entry dated or number and only ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. H.C.L. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT425Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. HCL, the respondents in this appeal by the Revenue imported a consignment of flexwell wave guide E 130 TD PDR 120 and claimed classification under heading 8548.90 with the benefit of Notification No. 36/96 Cus meant for microwave passive components. The imported goods are copper tubings with protective covering of plastic. The goods are in running length, the longest being 200 mts. These goods, after cutting them into required sizes, are installed between the transmeters and the antenna to carry the electro magnetic waves. The lower original authority classified the goods under Chapter Heading 83.07 and denied the benefit of Notification No. 36/96 which exempts Microwave Passive Components from customs duty. Chapter heading 83.07 at the relevant time reads as follows:- 83.07 flexible tubings and base metal with or without fittings:- 2. The lower authority referred to HSN explanatory note which says that this heading covers corrugated flexible tubing and tubings covered with pl...

Balu Raosaheb Navale and Gopinath Raosaheb Navale Vs. the State of Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ366

R.S. Mohite, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed by the Appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused Nos. 1 & 2) seeking to quash and set aside a Judgment and order dated 21.12.1991 passed by he Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 255/1991, whereby the trial court convicted accused No. 1 of an offence punishable under Section 302 and 326 of Indian Penal Code and convicted accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian penal Code and Section 326 r/w of Indian Penal Code. By the impugned Judgment and Order, accused No. 1 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years, for the conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 326, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. In so far as accused No. 2 was concerned, for...

Ranjit Shripatrao Holkar (Since Deceased by His Heirs Mrs. Vijayadevi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR403; 2004(4)MhLj842

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the owners of an agricultural land in village Bhilare, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, Dist. Satara, questions the correctness of Judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No. MRT.N.S.II/6/83 (Ten. N. 45/83) dated February 18, 1987. The proceedings have emanated from an application preferred by the landlord for possession of the suit lands under Sections 14, 25 and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The original petitioner is the successor-in-interest of the landlady Malatibai Shripatrao holkar, who was a disabled landlord being widow on 1st April, 1957, on account of which the tiller's day stood postponed. The respondents had committed default during the year 1972-75 for which demand notices were sent by the landlady from time to time. Eventually termination notice was sent on 1st December, 197...

Vinod Vyankat Narsaiyya Gannu Vs. Sunil S/O Diwakar Poshettiwar and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR360; 2004(6)BomCR732; 2004(4)MhLj245

B.R. Gavai, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 11th September, 2003 below Exh. 16 in Regular Civil Suit No. 806 of 2003, passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code and held that the court fee payable on the said suit was payable under Item No. 7 of Schedule-1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) and not under Section 6(iv)(j) of the said Act.The facts, in brief, out of which the present petition arises are as under :--That, the petitioner herein in partnership with the defendant No. 1 was carrying out the partnership business in the name of M/s P. G. Pharma. The said firm was carrying on the business of carrying and forwarding agency. The said firm was engaged by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, herein the original defendants No. 2 and 3 as its carrying and forwarding agents.3. It app...

Vasant S/O Jairam Badodekar Vs. Prakash S/O Bhiku Warhade and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj321

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard. The present appeal has been preferred by the original appellant, thereby, challenged the judgment dated 24-4-1986, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana in Claim Petition No. 16/1984, whereby, the total amount of Rs. 14,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'Old Act') was awarded.2. The Advocate appearing for the claimant restricted his case only in reference to the compensation in respect of 'General Damages'. No other points argued and/or pressed by the Advocate for the appellant. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence, as well as, the material placed on the record, and after taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant has awarded total compensation under this head of General Damages at Rs. 1000/- only. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, therefore, contended that the General Damages as awarded is on the lower side and it should have been on the higher side. He...

Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT1049Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who has held that technical know-how payments to their foreign collaborators were to be included in the assessable value of capital goods and components for manufacture of different types of lifts. The lower appellate authority has applied Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1963 for the above purpose.2. We have heard both sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner, who had accepted the Gross invoice value under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of the old Valuation Rules (Import in the present case took place prior to April 1988), and remanded the case for fresh decision to the Assistant Commissioner in accordance with law, and in the light of his finding in paragraph 5 of the impugned order inter alia to the effect that the know-how fee was to be included in the assessable value of the imported goods. We s...

Mahesh Texturisers, Maheshbhai Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT540Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat who has confirmed the following duty amounts and penalties upon the following persons:________________________________________________________________________S. Appellant Duty (Rs. ) Penalty (Rs.)No.3. Shankar S. Somani, 25,000/- Partner of M/s. Somani4. Mr. Mahesh S. Somani, Rs. 25,000/- Director of M/s.2. The demands arise as a result of holding that the benefit of Notification 1/93-CE (for small scale units) was not available to either company as they had used the brand name "Sumilon" of M/s. Sumeet Synthetics Limited for texturised yarn manufactured by them.3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and see force in the applicants' contention that prima facie the benefit of SSI notification is admissible for the reason that the brand names are affixed on packing slips of textured yarn by the applicants who are job workers and the yarn is ...

Nazir-ur-rahman and Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT493Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Briefly the facts are that the appellants alighted at Santacruz, Airport, Mumbai from a domestic flight coming from Chennai on 28-03-2002. They had seven piece of checked in baggage. On certain intelligence that smuggled goods from Chennai were being brought to Mumbai for sale, the Officers examined the baggage of the appellants.Such an examination revealed that the two appellants were carrying Chattons and cup chains of foreign origin valued at Rs. 41,02,850/- CIF. The appellants were asked to explain as to how they came to possess the goods in question. Riaz-Ur-Rahman one of the appellants in his statement dated 28.03.2002 stated that one Shri Ramji of Madras has asked him to deliver the said goods to one Shri Rajesh in Mumbai; that he does not know the addresses of either of them; that he requisitioned the services of Nazir-Ur-Rehman, the second appellants, to carry out the task and that he agreed to deliver the goods to Rajesh in Mumbai for a consideration. He pleaded that he w...