Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Grauer and Weil Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of electroplating chemicals and sought classification of their products under chapter heading 3823.00 of CETA as product of the chemical or allied industries not elsewhere specified or included. As per the technical data submitted by them, the products fell for classification as brightening agent under chapter heading 3204.30. On this basis, show cause notices covering the period from April 1993 to February 1994 were issued proposing recovery of total duty of Rs. 59,27,622.26. The notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who noted that classification dispute had already been settled by Order-in-original No. 205/AC/VIII/95 dated 3-8-95 and the classification list was approved based on Board letter F. No. 90/1/93-CX-3 dated 8-2-94. He, therefore, ordered that chemical used for electroplating should be classified depending on the use of chemical at pre-electroplating, electroplating and post electroplating stage or pi...

L.D. Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT174Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These four appeals have been filed before the Tribunal in terms of Section 129A of the Customs Act by the four captioned appellants. They arise out of the same Order No. 18/Collr./1986, dated 21-4-86 under reference F. No. VIII/10-12/Collr./85 passed by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad. They involve common points of law and hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.2. The brief facts necessary for the consideration of these appeals are that M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Limited obtained two advance licences under the Duty Exemption Scheme envisaged in Appendix 19 of the 1983-84 Import Policy. These licences were 2962655, dated 5-8-83 for 512.50 M/Ts of man-made fibres and 2963408, dated 4-6-84 for 2050 M/Ts of man-made fibres with duty exemption benefit within the overall limits of 550 and 2200 M/Ts respectively. One of the conditions of these licences was that the licence holders should export 500 M.T. of man-made spun yarn of Rs. 75 lakhs o...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Safal Marketing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None appeared for the respondents. Heard Shri Hitesh Shah, learned SDR for the department. The lower appellate authority has held the impugned orders to be eligible for exemption under Notification No.23/96-Cus., dated 2-6-1998 holding the same to be covered under the expression "Digital Imaging System for face X-ray" in view of the fact that the said goods are made for dental radiography. We are of the view that the order passed by the lower appellate authority does not require any interference. As such, the department's appeal is rejected....

Alfa Packaging Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT81Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Demand of duty of Rs.57,16,47,909/- has been confirmed against the appellants in respect of small pouches of shampoo cleared by them during the period April 1999 to March 2004 by raising in the show cause notice was well within time. In addition, an equal amount of penalty has also been imposed. The issue involved is as to whether such sachet of 3 to 9 ml are liable to assessed to duty in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act or 4A of the same. It is seen that said dispute was the subject matter of Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay by the appellant, which was disposed of by the High Court vide its order dated 5.10.98 wherein the Hon'ble High Court after taking note of the Board's Circular no. 411/44/98-CX dated 31.7.98 directed the Revenue to assess the disputed item under Section 4 of the Act. Based upon the above decision, the Assistant Commissioner subsequently vide its order dated 7.12.98 held that shampoo of such sachets of below 10 ml packing remo...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hardcastle and Waud Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein who are manufacturers of coating paints based on epoxide resins, and pure polyester resins falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, filed classification list dated 4-3-1993 classifying epoxide resins - hawcoplast powder coating/paints under CET sub-heading 3907.30, and hawcoplast powder coating/paints in PP (pure polyester) under CET subheading 3907.99 claiming concessional rate of duty of 20% ad valorem in terms of serial Nos. 7 and 10 of the table to notification 133/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The department was of the view that the concessional rate of duty claimed by them was not admissible as the items in dispute were not epoxide resins or polyester resins per se, but products based on such resins with distinct identity as coating powders in trade parlance. The department was further of the view that the goods were assessable to duty @ 30% ad valorem in terms of Serial No. 23 to notification 15/94, dated 1-3-1994 and...

A.K. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1996-97.2. The assessee is objecting in confirming share trading loss of Rs. 10,61,038 as its speculation loss, ignoring the fact that Section 73 was not applicable in the present case. The assessee is also objecting in confirming disallowance of compensation payment of Rs. 1,10,87,000 paid to Sh. T.K. Lalwani & others on the ground that it pertains to the assessment year 1995-96 and not to the current assessment year 1996-97.The assessee also filed additional ground vide application dated 24-4-2005. The following additional grounds were raised by the assessee: "That in the case of assessing officer's contention is accepted and compensationof Rs. 1,10,87,000 is considered to be pertaining to assessment year 1995-96 on the ground that the letter for cancellation of the MOU for sale of office premises and payment of compensation is dated 30-3-1995, then a specific directi...

Jacinto Minguel De Quadros Barretto and ors. Vs. Haridas Maruti Kamat,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR441; 2006(2)BomCR84; (2005)107BOMLR879

Britto, J.1. This appeal is directed against Judgment/Award dated 18.3.02 of the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Margao (Reference Court, for short). 2. The dispute between the appellants and the respondents is regarding the receipt of compensation of Rs. 14,33,618/due and payable on account of acquisition of an area of 14,764 sq. metres of Chalta No. 14 of P.T. Sheet No. 225 of Margao City Survey, forming part of lote No. 45 belonging to the Communicateof Aquem known as 'Rumboleachem Contoleavelem Bhat', which was acquired by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published on Gazette dated 26.3.87. 3. The appellants claim the said compensation through their paternal grandmother Maria Paulacina Eugenia de Quadros who was the original encroacher/usurper of the said land of Comunidade, whilst the respondents claim the same through their father Maruti Kamat. 4. The case of the appellants before the Reference Court was that the said ...

Smt. Kiran Ajit Lakhani Vs. Shri Ajit Hariram Lakhani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR90; 2006(2)BomCR648; (2005)107BOMLR1037; 2006(2)MhLj894

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the appellant/mother and respondent/father. Appeal No. 692 of 2003 is filed by the mother. The mother had filed a petition claiming custody of the child Girisha. That petition was dismissed. Access was given to the mother during holidays and school vacation. The order of dismissal of petition was passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Thane on 10.05.2002. By the time, the appeal was filed and it has come for hearing today, the child Girisha attains the age of 13 years. Therefore on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : [1973]3SCR918 [Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal] the mother claims that the custody should be given to her. My attention was specifically drawn by the counsel for the mother to para 16 of the judgment which is as under :'16. The respondent's contention that the Court under the Divorce Act had granted custody of the two younger children to the wife on the ground of their being of tender age, no longer ho...

Shri K.N. Lahiri (Since Deceased Represented by Legal Heirs Shri Avina ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)108BOMLR139

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The legal representatives of the expropriated owner (hereinafter to be referred as 'the claimants') are in appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 1862001 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, whereby the said Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1.30/per sq. metre(the rate at which the offer was made by the Land Acquisition Officer). 2. The claimants owned land admeasuring 3,80,600 sq. metres bearing survey nos.8/1, 12/1, 13/1, 14/1, 15/1 and 17/1 situate at Village Caranzol, Taluka Sanguem. The said land was purchased by them vide two Sale Deeds dated 1531985 and 1051985 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/( Rupees Five Lacs). The Government of Goa issued the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the Official Gazette on 04021988 whereby the aforesaid land was sought to be acquired for expansion of Mollem Wild Life Sanctuary. Upon conclusion of the acquisition pro...

Swarupchand S/O Tarachand Lunawat and anr. Vs. Additional Collector an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj636

A.H. Joshi. J.1. Rule, Rule returnable forthwith with the consent, of the parties.2. Heard learned Advocate Shri Rajiv C. Madkholkar for Shri V. R. Choudhary and Shri P. D. Meghe for the respondent No. 2.3. This is a petition under Article 226 by petitioner No. 1 the tenant and his brother petitioner No. 2 who is residing in suit premises along with petitioner No. 1.The respondent No. 2 is the landlord.FACTS IN BRIEF4. Mahipatrao Sahastrabuddhe was the original landlord. Petitioner No. 1 is the tenant of suit premises through Mahipatrao. Mahipatrao had initiated eviction proceedings which ended in compromise and enhancement of rent. Thereafter, in 1982 present respondent No. 2 purchased suit house from Mahipatrao. Respondent No. 2 and Mahipatrao are related to each other and due to the old age and relation which Mahipatrao had, he has continued to occupy part of suit house,5. Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings for permission to terminate tenancy on various ground under Section 13(i...