Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Delta Air Lines Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT925Tri(Mum.)bai
1. A duty demand of Rs. 11,13,324/- has been confirmed against the appellants herein on the ground that they violated condition (a) of Ad-hoc Exemption Order No. 267 dated 8.9.1997 by selling line scan systems imported by them for Delhi and Mumbai airports respectively to M/s. United Airlines in September 1995. Confiscation of the line scan systems has been ordered in terms of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and penalty of Rs. 100/-has been imposed under Section 112 upon the appellants.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records. The appellants do not contest the duty demand which stands paid by them, and only challenge the confiscation and penalty.3. M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc., Mumbai and M/s. International Airlines engaged in transport of passengers and cargo through Indian airports, had obtained import customs clearance permits for line scan syst...
Deokisan Rambilas Sarda and ors. Vs. Director of Town Planning and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR16; 2005(2)BomCR203; 2005(1)MhLj362
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Khade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 and 2.2. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 5-1-1987 whereby the State Government has delegated its powers under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, to respondent No. 1 - Director of Town Planning on the ground that such delegation of powers vide Section 151 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, is invalid.3. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Notification under which the Director of Town Planning - respondent No. 1 has sought to act, seeks, to confer powers on the Director at Sr. No. 5 of the Notification, under Section 31 of the Act, in respect of 'B' and 'C' Class Municipal Councils and for the Development Plan undertaken by Zilla Parishad as a Planning Authority.4. In the present case, the issue pertains t...
Suteja Suresh Mathkar Vs. Saroj Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR627; 2005(1)MhLj661
Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Article 226Cases Referred: Prabhu Shriram Sahakari Dudh Vyawasaik Sanstha Maryadi, Ahmednagar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1993(3) Bom CR 20Citing Reference: Prabhu Shriram Sahakari Dudh Vyawasaik Sanstha Maryadi,Ahmednagar v. State of Maharashtra and OrsMentioned R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 28th November, 2000 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Mumbai, in Application No. 78 of 2000, which was filed by the petitioner under Section 21-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'), requesting for de- registration of the respondent No. 1- society. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed by the concerned authority.3. The challenge to the impugned order is mainly on the three grounds. Firstly, that in terms of the provisions of law contained in Section 6 of the said ...
Head Master, Amar High School and anr. Vs. Lata D/O Gajanan Suryawansh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR96; 2005(3)ESC1827; 2005(1)MhLj1150
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed the judgment and order dated 9-4-2002 passed in Appeal No. 249 of 1997 by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal at Aurangabad whereby the respondent No. 1 Assistant Teacher has been directed to be reinstated in service with full backwages and other consequential benefits by quashing and setting-aside the order of termination dated 3-12-1997.2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Head Master of Amar High School, Baijipura, Aurangabad and the said school is being run by Madan Education Society (petitioner No. 2). The said school has classes from 5th to 10th standards and is an aided private school. One Assistant Teacher by name Shri Rarhdas Limba Pawar had submitted his resignation and subsequently submitted an objection petition dated 7-11-1995 to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, stating that he was forced to resign. He belonged to the open category and his post fell vacant. ...
Shri Peter Menon Vs. State of Goa Through the Superintendent Central J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR445
N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. Heard Smt. Asha Dessai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. R. Rivonkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the Superintendent of Jail refused to accept his wife as surety inspite of the fact that the wife of the petitioner had produced before him necessary papers showing that she owned property, and, insisted that the petitioner's wife produce either cash security of Rs. 10,000/- or F.D.R. in the like amount to comply with the orders of the I.G.P., ordering the release of the petitioner on parole.4. On behalf of the petitioner/prisoner, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel, Smt. Dessai that as a result of the said Superintendent not accepting the said property papers towards the solvency of the wife of the petitioner as a surety, she was compelled to borrow an am...
Welspun India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)235; [2006]282ITR395(Bom)
1. Heard Mr. K. Gopal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.V. Desai, the learned senior counsel for the Revenue.2. The communication dt. 25th March, 2004, whereby the AO directed the petitioner to get its accounts audited by the special auditor is under challenge.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no justification for having the accounts of the assessee audited by a special auditor when the AO had not examined the accounts. He relied upon the cases namely : (i) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : [1988]171ITR634(All) ; (ii) Bata India Ltd. and Anr. v. CIT and Ors. : [2002]257ITR622(Cal) ; (iii) Dy. CIT and Anr. v. Muthoottu Mini Kuries : [2004]266ITR213(Ker) ; and (iv) U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. v. CIT and Anr. : [2000]245ITR192(All) and submitted (1) that no attempt was made by the AO in examining the accounts and had it been done, the accounts would not have been found complex (2) that the special audit places financia...
Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)239
1. Heard Mr. K. Gopal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.V. Desai, the learned senior counsel for the Revenue.2. The AO was of the view that the accounts of the assessee were complex and the interest of the Revenue demanded that accounts of the assessee be audited by a special auditor. After obtaining the approval of the concerned CIT, the AO directed the petitioner to get its accounts audited by the special auditor and submit the report of the special auditor within 120 days from the date of the communication dt. 25th March, 2004. It is this communication which is under challenge in the present writ petition.3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue informs us that the special audit has substantially progressed and the special auditor could not submit the report in view of the letter written by the assessee to them that the writ petition challenging their appointment was sub judice before the High Court.4. The diverse contentions were raised by the learned...
Technova Imaging System Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT303Tri(Mum.)bai
1.1 The issue in the present case is whether or not the principles of unjust enrichment can apply when the assessments are still provisional under Rule 9 B and have not yet been finalised.2.1 Since 1980, the Appellants had been purchasing duty-paid jumbo rolls of polyester film, which had been lacquered with chemicals, these jumbo rolls after bringing them to the appellants premises are slit and padded.2.2 As the aforesaid process of slitting and packing did not amount to a process of manufacture no excise duty was paid by the appellants, between 1980 and 1988.2.3 By a show cause notice dated 12/7/1988 it was alleged that the process of cutting/slitting and packing undertaken by the appellants amounted to a process of manufacture. The Appellants were therefore called upon to show cause why they should not pay Central Excise duty for the period March 1986 to 4/2/1988.2.4 During the pendency of the aforesaid show cause notice, the Appellants were compelled to take out a L4 license the C...
Roma International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The main dispute in this case relates to whether the impugned goods imported by the appellants are chargeable to antidumping duty under notification No. 138/2002-Cus dated 10/12/2002.Shri Z.B. Nagarkar, learned consultant for the appellants states that the impugned goods are not complete Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) and hence are not covered by notification No. 138/2002. He also cites the following two decisions of the Tribunal and the Advance Ruling Authority to contend that similar goods have been held to be not chargeable to antidumping duty:-Philips India Ltd. v. C.C., Mumbai - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 49 (Tribunal) (2) Advance Ruling No. AAR (Cus)/03/2004 dated May 13, 2004 in the case of M/s Permalite Electricals (P) Ltd, - 2004(94)ECC323(AAR) He also objects to reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on the American (NEMA) standards to hold the impugned goods to be CFL.2. Shri A. Chopra, the learned J.D.R. for the department on the other hand supports the...
Dilip Gum Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT371Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The original authority has held the processes carried out on guar dal to produce guar gum as amounting to manufacture and has classified the same under CET sub-heading No. 1310.10. After allowing the small-scale exemption, he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 5,22,866/- and has imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC, in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q.He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 50/000/- on the second appellant, partner in the appellant-firm on the ground that he was responsible for all omissions and commissions. The lower appellate authority has upheld the order except for setting aside the penalty under Rule 173Q in the light of penalty imposed under Section 11AC. The learned S.D.R, supports the impugned order and relies on the Tribunal's stay order in the case of Kraps Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Surat-II - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 705 to support classification of the impugned goods under subheading No. 1310.10.2. The l...