Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Vithoba N. Adel Vs. Vijaya Bank and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR390; I(2005)BC366

S.A. Bobde, J.1. These First Appeals are filed by the original defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) against the judgment and decree of the Ist Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division Margao. By the judgment and decree in appeal the learned Civil Judge has decreed the suit of the respondent-Bank together with interest and future interest. The appellant's counter-claim has been dismissed.2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.3. On 21.1.1988 the plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,75,144, a sum inclusive of interest till the date of filing of the suit and for future interest from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. On 16.1.1989 most of the defendants were served. On 16.8.1989 all the defendants including the heirs of the deceased defendant stood served. The defendants did not file their written statement soon after service. They filed it on 24.1.1994. In the written statement, without plea...

Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT21Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 81,50,472.00 confirmed by the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise together with interest. The period of demand is June 1996 to June 1998 and October 2000 to August 2003. Demand has been confirmed on glazed/unglazed ceramic pieces of Mosaic Tiles, holding that they fall for classification under Chapter Heading 69.06/69.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting duty at the appropriate rate.2. The contention of the applicants inter-alia is that the item in question is not marketable and is an intermediate product in the manufacture of complete mosaic tiles which is made by pasting the ceramic pieces on square sheets of craft paper in different patterns/designs as per the orders of the customer's order and that the mosaic tiles are used for flooring as well as cladding for walls, and that the complete tile has discharged duty liability under Chapter Heading 68.07 which the Tribu...

Arebee Star Maritime Agencies, Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC307

1. After the appellant in this case is the Liner Agent their Director and Employees. On the basis of bill of lading supplied the (IGM) was filed for goods declaring the quantity 109.98 MT Bare Aluminium Scrap as per ISRI Taste and Talon mixed in equal proportion in six containers. As per the said Bill of Lading M/s. Blaze International was notified as consignee for the said cargo. However, M/s Blaze International vide their letter dated 20.01.2000 made it clear that they were not importer of the goods and there was some error on the side of Liner Agent. They categorically stated that the said consignment did not belong to them and nor they had placed the order for the same. The appellants herein requested for re-export of the cargo stating the reasons that the consignee was not owing the goods and Load Port Antwerp had been informed regarding this issue. This consignment was examined by the Customs. On examination the Customes have found it to contain Ammonium Sulphate 95.570 MT and n...

Uni Abex Alloy Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants seek implementation of the T ribunal's final order No. C-I/3016/WZB/2002 dated 1.10.2002 allowing their appeal against rejection of claim for refund of interest paid by them, with consequential relief.3. We find that after the passing of the Tribunal's order, the applicants wrote to the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.2002 requesting him to pass refund order for Rs. 12,96,843/- along with applicable interest; by letter dated 28.11.2003 the applicants were directed to produce all necessary documents such as annual report, concerned sales invoices etc. as the department was of the view that the claim may be hit by bar of unjust enrichment; and the documents were produced under cover of letter dated 2.12.2003. By order dated 8.12.2003, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim on the ground that the applicants have failed to prove that they have not been unjustly enriched by the amount in question. In the case of Mafatlal Industries, the Hon'ble Supre...

Exon Laboratories P. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is directed against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal of the appellants against the order in original was rejected. In the order in original the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of excise duty of Rs. 35,886/- in respect of shortage in the raw material stock. Besides, central excise duty of Rs. 78,754/- was confirmed in respect of clearances of samples during the period of October 1993 and September 1998. Penalty of Rs. 36,000/- was imposed under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on Shri Nitin Bund under provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The instant appeal challenges the order of the lower authorities.3. So far as the shortages in respect of inputs is concerned, the appellants pleaded that the duty of Rs. 35,886/- on the alleged shortage was paid on 12.9.1998 itself, on the day of the visit of the central excise officers. The duty payment is not in dispute. The penalty of ...

Mohindra Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 30,00,024/- and penalty of equal amount arises out the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who has upheld the confirmation of duty by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the applicants had opted to pay excise duty on the basis of duty determination under Rule 96 ZO(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and had paid duty at the rate of Rs. 7,50,000/- per month which option was not available to them.2. The plea raised before us is only that of financial hardship, stating that the applicants is a sick company declared as such by BIFR and that it has been closed for the past 4 years and has suffered significant loss. The prayer is opposed by Ld. SDR who draws our attention to the fact that the applicants have a very high sales income and therefore it would not cause them any undue hardship if they are put to deposit the amount particularly when the issue stands decided against them by the Apex Cour...

Kishore Pumps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT45Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants had filed the instant appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand of Rs. 88,733/- was rejected, besides there is also imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,873/-.2. The brief facts are that from the appellant's factory vide two AR-4's dated 24-9-1997 and 17-6-1998 exports goods were cleared by a "merchant-exporter" involving duty of Rs. 88,733/-. It is clear that the appellants could not produce any evidence of the export of the said goods or whatever details they could obtain from the merchant-exporter were not considered sufficient. Hence, the impugned order. The appellants pleaded before the lower authorities that export was done by a merchant-exporter and the said merchant was required to produce the proof of export, before the Maritime Commissioner and there was no obligation on the appellants to produce the required proof of export.3. Since the commitment to complete th...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Citicrop Overseas Softwares Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Mum.)87

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Mumbai, pertaining to asst. yr. 1996-97. The following grounds are taken by the Revenue : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), Mumbai, erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 41,20,000 made by the AO holding that the software does not have any degree of endurability and permanence due to change of system and change of technology. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), Mumbai, erred in directing the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 80HHE holding that the AO had erred in making the addition of Rs. 25,15,728 while computing the deduction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), Mumbai, erred in holding that the claim regarding depreciation of Rs. 15,32,824 is in accordance with law and therefore, should be accepted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances...

Digamber Yeshwantrao Watane Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR433; 2004(6)BomCR678; 2005(1)CTLJ152(Bom); [2004(102)FLR988]; (2004)IIILLJ895Bom; 2004(3)MhLj603

B.R. Gavai, J.1. The present petition challenges the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati dated 15-7-1989 in Revision No. 6 of 1987, thereby rejecting the revision of the present petitioner.2. Factual background giving rise to filing of the present is as under:--That, the petitioner was working as a Secretary in APMC, Achalpur, the respondent No. 1 herein, since its inception i.e. 1963. On account of certain grievance, the petitioner submitted an offer for voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 28th October, 1986. In the letter, offering for voluntary retirement, the petitioner had put certain conditions. The relevant condition for adjudication of the present petition in the said letter is Condition No. 2, which reads thus, 'that an amount of gratuity should be paid in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Rule 34(C) of Service Conditions of APMC as per the pay payable to the petitioner on the date of retirement.'3. The sa...

Sandeep Alias Sanjay Vithal Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ3678

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner by the present petition seeks to quash the Judgment and order dated 16th September, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, whereby the petitioner has been held guilty of having committed rape and has been punished under Section 376 r/w/ 506 of Indian Penal Code. The challenge is on the ground that the court below did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 475 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, here-in-after called as 'the said Code'.4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was wrongly shown as 'Agriculturist' inspite of the fact that the petitioner was in active military service as Army Personnel being Non-Commissioned Officer and thereby the proceedings were held in the Sessions Court in accordance with the provisions of the said Code even though in accordance with the provisions of Army Act 1950 (h...