Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Cce Vs. Blue Star Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC86Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein had filed classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for: claiming classification under CETA sub-heading 8418.00 attracting Central Excise duty @ 20% ad valorem vide the Notification 53/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 and 46/94-CE dated 1.3.19994. The department was of the view that the products merit classification under CETA sub-heading 8415.00 attracting duty @ 30% ad valorem vide the Notification 46/94 dated 1.3.1994 since they are used in air-conditioning systems and therefore 10 show cause notices-cum-demand notices were issued proposing recovery of duty for the period February, 1994 to June, 1997 on the above basis. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed total duty demand of Rs. 1,41,01,000/- by approving the classification under CETA sub-heading 8415.00; the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, accepting the claim of the assessees for classification under CETA sub-heading 8418.00; hence this appeal by the Revenue.3. ...

Mrs. Shabana MohsIn Ghazi Alias Shaikh Vs. Mr. Hanif Azmi Eliyas Azami ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR156; 2005(1)BomCR238; 2004(4)MhLj356

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th May, 2003 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 2004 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane directing the defendants to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property being flat No. 102 admeasuring about 912 sq.ft. (carpet area) locate in B-wing, in the building known as 'Sundaram Enclave' in Sundaram Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Mira Road, District- Thane ('the suit flat' for short) Facts: 2. Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. Respondent No. 2 is original defendant No. 1, whereas appellant is original defendant No. 2. Original defendant are husband and wife. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased suit flat in their joint name in the year 1998 for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakh. 3. The case of Respondent No. 1 - original, plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement to purchase the suit flat on 19th March, 2004 from defendant No. 1 who has executed the said agreement on behalf of himself and his wife,...

Dnyan Mandir Shikshan Prasarak Sabha and the Secretary, Dnyan Mandir S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR103; 2004(6)BomCR166; 2004(4)MhLj92

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2001 passed below Exh.1 in S.c.Suit No. 3163 of 1991 by the City Civil Court at Bombay directing return of plaint to the plaintiffs for presenting it to a proper court.The Facts:2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in nutshell, are as under:The parties are referred to in their original capacity as they were before the trial Court. The plaintiff No. 1 is an educational institution; whereas plaintiff No. 2 is the Secretary of the said institution. The defendant No. 1 is the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ('MHADA' for short); whereas defendant No. 2 is the President of Motilal Nagar-III Tenants' Association (Regd), Goregaon (West), Bombay. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the licensees of defendant No. 2 in possession of the premises bearing tenement No. 32/245, Motilal Nagar-III, M.G. Road, Goregaon (W), Bombay-90 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises') since 1974 o...

Om Jai Shri Gurukrupa Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Mrs. Va ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom47; 2004(4)ALLMR458; 2005(1)BomCR367; 2004(4)MhLj916

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, dated November 26, 1990 in Appeal No. 238 of 1988. The Petitioner Society filed dispute against the Respondents before the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No. 111, 'C' wing in the Society's building. Respondent No. 1 is the member of the Petitioner Society. Whereas the member, after taking possession of the flat from the Petitioner Society, has allowed the Respondent No. 2 to occupy the same. This, according to the Society, was impermissible by virtue of Bye-law No. 12(1)(g) read with Bye-law No. 12(1)(a). The case of the society is that no prior permission in writing has been obtained from the society for permitting the Respondent No. 2 to occupy the said flat whereas the case of the Respondents is that the Respondent No. 1 was enr...

Vikram S/O Dhondu Awhale Since Deceased by Lrs. Subidrabai Wd/O Vikram ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR172; 2005(2)MhLj507

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who was successful in the trial Court, however, had failed in the 1st Appellate Court.2. The facts in brief as narrated in the plaint are that:--That the plaintiff who owned land Survey No. 17/1 8 acres 20 Gunthas to the extent of 3 acres therefrom, was in need of money and therefore, on 10-5-1976 agreed that he shall execute a nominal sale deed in favour of the defendant to secure a loan of Rs. 2000/-. The defendant agreed to lend a loan and to re-convey the property when the loan would be repaid. It was also agreed that on account of interest, the defendant shall enjoy the crop. Though the transaction was that of money lending, in order to overcome the difficulties, those would follow in view of law, the nominal sale deed was executed and for testifying the oral agreement, the defendant executed a document to reconvey the property on repayment of the debt. The defendant failed to concede to receive money and return the property. The...

Seagull Thread (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Three issues are involved in this appeal. Is the Revenue right in relying on the figures shown in the balance sheet of the appellant company to determine the actual quantity of polyester and viscose yarn produced? The second issue is whether or not the activity of reeling of polyester yarn/viscose yarn on smaller reels from bigger cones, which were procured from outside amounts to manufacture in terms of chapter note No. 2. of chapter 55 of CETA. The third is whether or not the viscose yarn dyed by the appellants and then reeled on to smaller reels is entitled to the benefit of Notification 35/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 as amended.2. A brief background to the issue is called for along with an understanding of the chapter note in question and the notification cited above.3. The appellants manufacture polyester sewing thread and art silk embroidery thread. The allegation is that the appellants cleared these goods without payment of duty. The allegation itself is based on the audited bala...

Jhaveri Polymers Ltd., Shri Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeals of the appellants are directed against the order-in-appeal whereunder their appeals against the order-in-original were rejected. In the order-in-original, it was held that the appellants had engaged in the illicit removal of 520 bales of HDPE bags valued at Rs. 12,22,000/- under two private challans dated 07/03/98 and 14/03/98. Consequently, excise duty demand amounting to Rs. 3,05,500/- was confirmed against the appellants, penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed under Section 11 AC read with Rule 173Q(1) and penalties of Rs. 15,000/- on the Director and Rs. 15,000/- on the Managing Director were imposed, besides ordering confiscation of land, plant and machinery, building, etc. with a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-.3. The main grievance of the appellants is that, the show cause notice does not refer to the said two challans as being the relied upon documents, despite the request made by the appellants. Copies of the said challans have not been made available an...

ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, whereby duty of Rs. 5,06,650/- was confirmed against the appellants under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with imposition of penalty of equivalent amount, and recovery of appropriate interest.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants availed modvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on various inputs. On referring to the balance sheet for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, it was observed that the statutory auditors had made a note in the relevant balance sheets that, there was a shortage in the physical stock in the raw materials/finished goods as compared to the book balance. This shortage was considered to be actual physical shortages in respect of raw materials and finished goods and consequently the aforesaid duty was demanded.4. It is claimed by the appellant that the shortage was 0.2% and .0053% respectively of the total sal...

Lalitha Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The assessee is in appeal. The Issue pertains to remission of duty on finished goods. A fire accident took place in the assessee's premises around 10.50 a.m. on 05.01.2002 and the same has been intimated to the Supdt., Central Excise, Range-Ill, Silvasa. The assessee has applied under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 for remission of duty amounting to Rs. 10,44,084.80 on finished goods valued at Rs. 65,25,530/-, which were burnt in the fire.2. The Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vapi, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 10,44,085/- under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards penalty.3. The electric short circuit is alleged to be the cause of fire accident, which has been negated by the Commissioner. He found that there was a grave lapse on the part of the assessee in not taking necessary precaution to safeguard the goods. It is also found that fire fighting system and fire alarm system were not adequate.4. We...

Carrara Marble and Granite Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC239

a) The appellants as it appear from the impugned order, paragraph 1 declared import of "Marble Blocks" to be cleared under DEEC advance licence. They were not allowed, as the examination report on the relevant BE indicated - "Checked the description, quantity & size, verified, not raw / rough, verified not polished and not cut to regular shape and size". On that basis, it was established that the goods were 'Marble slabs' and not "Rough randam slabs of marble" as declared on the BE (as it appears from paragraph 11 of impugned order). Therefore, misdeclaration was alleged and established. Paragraph 12 of the impugned order also records "12. The goods were found to be semi-finished marble slabs. The import licence produced by the party were for the "Relevant Marble slabs". The goods were not of this description i.e. raw marble and they were also not "relevant" i.e. with export product. Hence the licence produced by the importer did not cover the said imports. It renders all the seve...