Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. and anr. Vs. Vasantrao Mahadeo Dhatingan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR63; 2005(1)BomCR327; 2005(2)MhLj28

Shah A.P., C.J.1. The respondent is the landlord and he filed an eviction suit against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who were defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial Court. The premises owned by the plaintiffs were given by him to defendant No. 1 company under a leave and licence agreement dated 3rd September, 1970 and by operation of the statute i e. section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, herein after referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act' for the purposes of brevity, defendant No. 1 acquired the status of a tenant.2. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2 on 23rd February, 1977 which subletting was in express violation of the provisions of law as also in violation of the agreement between the parties dated 3rd September, 1970. The suit was opposed by both the defendants and it was pleaded that under section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, the tenant is entitled to transfer the tenancy rights...

Anjali Jayant Gandhi Vs. Ramesh Gopal Vagholikar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR73; 2005(2)BomCR933; (2005)107BOMLR812; 2005(1)MhLj537

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The respondent is an owner of the flat No. 1 situated in Suyog Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Gultekdi in the locality known as Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth Colony, Pune 411037, (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises'). By an agreement of leave and licence dated 1st May, 1996, the respondent granted a licence to the petitioner, to use and occupy the suit premises for a period of 22 months commencing from 1st May, 1996 and expiring on 31st March, 1998, on the monthly licence fee of Rs. 1,500/-. On expiry of the period of the licence by mutual consent the licence was renewed for a period of 36 months on the increased licence fee of Rs. 2,000/- per month. A written agreement of renewal of the licence was also executed between the parties on 1st April, 1998. The renewed licence expired on 31st March, 2001. As the petitioner failed and neglected to vacate and deliver ...

Abdul Gaffar Abdul Karim Rarani Vs. Abdul Ruhim Pappu (Dr.) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR33; 2005(1)BomCR863

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard. This petition has been filed by a candidate who won the election by 6 votes. The Election Petition No. 2 of 2002, is pending before the competent authority, i.e. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati filed by the respondent No. 1, a defeated candidate. The petitioner won the election of the Councillor of respondent No. 11 Municipal Corporation. The respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are the rival candidates who contested the said election respondent Nos. 11 and 12 are the authorities connected with the aforesaid elections., Respondent No. 13 is the Judge, as defined under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), read with the Election Rules, framed under Section 453 of the Act. The election was held on 10-2-2002.2. The basic prayer in the election petition as filed by the contesting respondent No. 1, is relevant which is reproduced as under:'(i) Held and declare that respondent No, 1 has been illegally declared...

Shree Ram Steel and Rolling Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT108Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the revenue's appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner relating to the final assessment order dated 20/03/2002 in respect of Bill of Entry No. SBY/82/2000-2001 dated 22/06/2001. "The seller M/s. Export Trade Corporation Ltd., Hong Kong had sold the vessel MV Karakoram having LDT of 4150 MT = 4084 LT to the appellants through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 02/06/200, at a price of US $ 756,561/-. The importer filed the Bill of Entry on 22/06/2001 declaring the total price of US $ 726,952/- and US $ 115,70/- (diff. 0.65 MT LT) for 4150 MT LDT (4048.65 MT LT) on the strength of an Addendum I & II dated Nil. According to the importer, the said addendum was necessitated, as the Vessel was not as per the MOA. The Bill of Entry was finally assessed at the price of US $ 7,26,952/-." 3. The department in the review ...

Arrow Coated Products Ltd., Arrow Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT883Tri(Mum.)bai

a) Proceedings were launched pursuant to an intelligence to the effect that 'Vinyl Sign Cutting Machines' were being imported by grossly undervaluing the same. Enquires were caused and notice were issued to the appellants herein. b) One machine imported by Patel Paper Product (PPP for short) and seven machine imported by M/s. Arrow Converters Pvt. Ltd., (ACPL for short) were found to be undervalued resulting in demand of duty short paid. Shri. Shilpan Patel, being the Managing Director, Appellant in appeal no. C/648/99 of ACPI, and proprietor of PPL was imposed a penalty of Rs. 18 lakhs. No penalty was imposed on ACPI. The valuations were ordered to be enhanced from the declared and accepted values. The machines were held liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and were offered to be redeemed on fine and demand of duty short paid confirmed & appropriate. c) Incriminating documents, as per allegation, were recovered from the premises of M/s. Arrow Coat...

Foranco Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby their claim for modvat credit was denied. The credit was denied on the ground that, duty paying documents namely, the bill of entry (B/E) has no endorsement in appellant's favour. The appellants pleaded that, the import was originally made by one M/s. Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd., who had sold the materials to M/s.Multichem Pvt Ltd., and the latter sold the said materials to the appellants. The credit has been taken on the basis of bill of entry.3. It is seen from the order of the adjudicating authority that, the claim of the appellants to the effect that, M/s. Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd., had approached the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mumbai, (AC) vide their letter dated 05/08/93 itself for recording of the facts of transfer of materials to M/s. Multichem Pvt Ltd., and resale by M/s.Multichem Pvt Ltd., to the appellants and affixation of an endorsement of the Assistant Collect...

Kumbhi Kasari Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT61Tri(Mum.)bai

(A) The issue is demand of excise duty on scrap generated in the Sugar Mills while repairing the damaged machinery which was declared in the classification declaration and was sold as metal workshop scrap. On directives of the Range Superintendent, they paid .duty of Rs. 82,878/- on such scrap. They received a notice dated 9-9-98; were consequently penalised & duty as paid was confirmed. In appeal the CCE (Appeals) reduced the penalty. Hence this appeal. (B) Since waste and scrap generated, in a workshop due to repair and reconditioning of machinery would not be waste/scrap arising out of processing of raw material, i.e. sugar cane in this case, therefore following the decision in case of U.O.I. v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co Ltd., 2003 (158) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (Paragraph 29) wherein it was found - "Manufacturing process involved treatment, labour or manipulation by the manufacturer resulting in a new and different article. It requires a deliberate skilful manipulation of the inputs or ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Indian Petrochemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Respondent herein M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., Dist. Baroda, imported 44.8 Mtrs. of Iso-Octane valued at CIF Rs. 18,57,884/-, ex-vessel CMBT. CONCORD, filed Bill of Entry dated 15.3.96, claming the clearance of goods under C.T.H. 2942 @ 50% + 20% OGL. The goods were allowed clearance on payment of duty of Rs. 15,01,170/- vide Cash No. HC-2229 dated 26.3.96 without any protest of any sort. The importer claimed the reassessment of the Iso-Octane under CTH 2901.29 @ 10% + 20% and filed a refund claim for the differential duty, which would arise after the reassessment of the goods under CTH 2901.29 by applying the concerned Notification No. 19/95-Cus. It is claimed that the imported goods were used in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene and sold to the customers thereby passing the burden of duty incidence on their customers. A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent, calling upon him to explain the following: "1. Why it should not be construed in terms o...

Novelty Exports Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case relates to seizure of certain articles of foreign origin including 1285 mtrs of velvet lining suspecting them to be imported in contravention of the Customs law. The seizure comprises of velvet lining cloth as well as other goods, although the present appeal is confined only to seizure of velvet lining cloth. The appellants tried to prove the legal importation of the said cloth before the Commissioner (Appeals) by producing documents of import under the DEEC scheme. However, the Commissioner held that, the material imported against the DEEC scheme is different from the goods under seizure. Hence the order of the lower authority was upheld and the confiscation and penalty were sustained, which are under challenge in the instant appeal.2. The appellants are not present. They had requested to decide the matter on merits.4. On going through the appeal, it is noted that, the appella...

C.C. Ex. Vs. AustIn Engg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A case was made out against the Respondents (herein after regards to as Austin for brevity sake). Austins factory was visited on 1.10.96 and enquires were conducted by the officers which resulted in a show cause notice dated 20.3.97 calling Austin to show cause seeking as to why -- a) 27739 No. of bearings of different marks and numbers valued at Rs. 66,44, 104/- seized from the said unit on 1.10.96 should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; b) they should produce the above referred goods for confiscation within one month failing which why the security furnished should not be forfeited; c) 4880 No. of bearings valued at Rs. 75,074/- which were found in excess than the recorded stock in RG-1 and seized on 11.10.1996 should not be confiscated under Rules, 1944; d) Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,21,94,699/- on removal of 9,91,746 Pes of bearings valued at Rs. 11,74,36,058/- and Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,99,919/- in respect of the 27137 no of bearings...