Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Godrej Consumer Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT159Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal eminates from the issue of finalisation of the price lists filed by the appellant.CESTAT Order in Appeal Order in Original Suptd's OrderAppeal NoE/2285/04 Commissioner Refund claim rejected Suptds order dated (Appeals) Ref. No. by Order in Original 14/16.12.96 for 191/98. Appeal No. 1991-94 Refund of rejected vide order 183/CEX/REF/AC/ Rs. 1,09,85,067/- no 97 dated 19-11-97 Correct amount is GW/178-181/2004 Rs. 1,20,74,256/- dated 31.03.2004E/2286/04 Commissioner Refund Application a) Refund of (Appeals) Ref. No. rejected by Order in Rs.29,34,137 (April 192/98. Appeal Original No. -Dec 1994) rejected vide order 184/CEX/REF/AC/97 No. GWL/178- dt. 19-11-97E/2284/04 Commissioner Demand confirmed b) Demand for (Appeals) Ref. No. by 010 No. 137/C.Ex Rs.7,24,713/- (Jan 42/98. Appeal /Demand/AC/97 -Mar 1995) rejected vide order dated 16-10-97 No. GWL/178-181/ (Amount recovered 2004 dt.31-03-04 by dept. vide PLA entry dated 19.02.98.E/2283/04 Commissioner Confirmed by DC in SNC...

Shri. Sumer Chand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s.Disco Electronics Limited, New Delhi is against the penalty imposed on him.2 (a) Imports were made spread over several BE's and declared as parts, while taken together, such parts would configurate as SKD/CKD, import of VCR/VCD player with Remote as the case may be. Such import was considered to be not permitted and ITC Licence was required. Appellants contested the notice on the grounds of i) The allegation that complete V.C.Rs and V.C.Ps. had been imported was denied. It was pointed out that the importer company was a SSI unit holding L-4 Licence. The company used to add several components and perform various functions for the manufacture of V.C.Rs & V.C.Ps. The value addition was to the tune of 30%. The Appellant had confirmed these facts in his statement recorded Under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 62.ii) It is well settled that Populated Printed Circuit Boards are not sub-assemblies or assemblies.iii) The cha...

Uni-deritend Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT123Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue relates to denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 70,061/- wrongly availed by the appellant. It is seen that the credit of Special Excise Duty was allowable on inputs prior to the 28th day of February, 1993 as per Notification 8/93, dated 1-11-1993, which was permitted to be utilised towards payment of duty on final products cleared subsequent to 28-2-1993, but prior to 31-3-1994, provided such inputs were permitted to be brought into the factory.2. The appellant has unauthorisedly merged the basic duty with the Special Excise Duty and have not maintained separate account for the same. Therefore, the denial of the said credit is fully justified.3. I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is accordingly dismissed....

Kamal Kacholia and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT87Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri V. Sridharan, the learned advocate for the appellants states that these appeals involve a duty demand of Rs. 42,07,807/- and an equal amount of penalty against M/s N.T.B.International and penalties totaling Rs. 38 Lakhs against the other 4 appellants. He says that the duty demand relates to classification, clubbing of clearances and clandestine removal. He concedes the demands on account of clubbing and clandestine removal amounting to:-4. Rs. 13,627 (Annexure IV to SCN - Misc. Items)Total Rs. 5,01,600 He contests the demands amounting to Rs. 12,68,162 (Annexure I to SCN) and Rs. 24,38,045 (Annexure IV to SCN) totaling Rs. 37,06,207 relating to classification of transmission belts. He states that such belts are classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 and eligible for full exemption under Notification No. 14/92 till 23/07/1996 and under SI.No. 39.6 of Notification No. 8/96 thereafter. The impugned transmission belts are composite goods made up of nylon and leat...

Smt. Jaya Jawahar Kanungo Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT254(Mum.)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-1-2003 of the CIT (A)-XV, Mumbai, in retaining the disallowance of carry forward of loss under the head 'Capital gain' at Rs. 1,01,926 for the assessment year 2003-04.The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year under appeal, it filed return of income on 31-3-2002 declaring total income of Rs. 2,45,590. In this return of income, the assessee has also claimed loss of Rs. 1,01,926 under head 'Capital gain' to be carried forward. In the assessment order, the assessing officer observed that return of income furnished by the assessee is beyond the limitation of time for filing return of income under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 139. The assessing officer also observed that as per sub-section (3) of section 139, the assessee may furnish a return of income within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139 which is relevant sub-section related to carry...

Taherbhai Abdullabhai and anr. Vs. Mohammed HussaIn Abdullabhai and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR371(Bom); 2004(6)BomCR4; 2005(1)MhLj566

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. All these petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging the consent Awards passed by the learned Arbitrator. It is common ground before me that all these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. Petition No. 353 of 2002 has been filed by one Taherbhai Abdullabhai. The same petitioner has filed Arbitration Petition No. 354 of 2002. Arbitration Petition No. 332 of 2002 has been filed by Shabbirbhai Abdullabhai. The same petitioner has filed Arbitration Petition No. 333 of 2002.3. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding these four petitions as are, that one Abdullabhai Fidaali Kagalawala owned several properties. After his death, disputes arose between his heirs. Disputes between the heirs regarding their respective rights in the properties left behind by Abdullabhai were referred to the sole Arbitrator by an order made by this Court. The petitioners in the present petitions are also ...

Bhaskar Sen Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)11; 2004(4)ALLMR606; III(2007)BC104; 2004(4)MhLj1115

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This group of five petitions involves a common question of law and, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The prayer in the first four petitions is for quashing of the non-bailable warrants (for short, 'NBW'), while in the last petition the prayer is for quashing of the order passed underSection 82 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Code'), by which the proclamation has been published requiring him to appear before the learned Magistrate. All these petitions arise from the proceedings underSection 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short, 'the Act').2. The question raised in these petitions is as to whether in summons case it is imperative for an accused to appear in the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and/or whether the Courts should be generous and liberal in exercising the powers conferred underSections 205 and 317 of the Code and dispensing with a physical presence of an accused unless his ...

Shipping Corporation of India Vs. Oyster Marine Inc.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR497(Bom); 2004(6)BomCR537

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The parties in these four petitions are identical. Some of the issues involved in these petitions are also identical. Before the Arbitrator, the evidence in all these matters was treated as common. Therefore, these four petitions can be conveniently disposed off by a common order.2. In all these petitions, Awards dated 22nd October, 2000 made by the same learned Arbitrator directing the petitioners to pay various amounts under different heads to the respondents are challenged. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are a Government of India Company engaged in the business of shipping and it owns several vessels. The vessels which are subject-matter of the present proceedings are m.t. Kolandia, m.t. Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, m.v. Lok Vivek and m.v. Harkishin. The respondent company is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of providing services of ship management, consultancy, manpower and agency services. T...

Mahim Causeway Macchimar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Vasant ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR358; 2005(1)BomCR76; (2005)107BOMLR706; 2005(1)MhLj138

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant is challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Some of the brief facts in the present case are as under :-2. The appellant is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said housing society was allotted a plot of land by the Government of Maharashtra in the year 1965 admeasuring about 4,548 square yards at Mahini. The members of the said society of the appellant consist of Koli community. The said plot of land was allotted by treating the said Kolis as dishoused persons. The said society is essentially formed for the purpose of providing for housing to the fishermen of the said area.3. An association of members or a proposed co-operati...

Randhirsingh S/O Gowardhansingh Vs. Sau. Alkatai Bhiwapurkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR194; 2005(1)MhLj198

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Maldhure, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 and 23, Shri Charde, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mrs. Khade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 3, and Shri Dhawle, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26.2. The petition is directed against the decision rendered by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 12-2-2004 as well as order dated 13-2-2004 passed by the respondent No. 1.3. Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that so far as decision dated 12-2-2004 taken by the respondent No. 3 is concerned, same is against the provisions of Section 81(9)(ii) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is submitted that there are 25 elected Councillors inclu...