Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

S.K. Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, I find that the demand of duty of Rs. 5,74,628/- has been confirmed against the appellants by denying them the benefit of Notification 128/94 on the ground that the condition of the said notification requiring a certificate from the District Magistrate has not been fulfilled. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants fairly agrees that the certificate produced by them is not from the District Magistrate but from Additional Collector, but submits that the same should be considered as a substantial compliance of the notification. He further submits that there is no doubt otherwise as regards the fact that the goods have been donated for use for the purposes incorporated in the notification. On the other hand, the Ld.SDR submits that the conditions of the notification have to be strictly complied by the assessee, who is claiming the benefit of the same.Accordingly, the Ld. SDR supports the impugned order and submits that the benefit has been rightly denied by the a...

Union of India (UOi) through the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR249; (2005)107BOMLR1082

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. R.V. Desai with Mr. Rajiv Chavan for the petitioner. Mr. Kantawala appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. This petition seeks to challenge the order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT' for short) in appeal No. C/484/01-MUM and C/485/2001/01-MUM on May 25, 2001 which allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.3. The short facts leading to this petition are given as under:4. A large quantity of smuggled ball bearings and electrical goods were found stored in the warehouse of one M/s. Saradha Trading Corporation. It was stated that they were imported at Calcutta and were meant for Nepal but were diverted to Mumbai for sale in open market. Some 213 cases of Spark plugs and 444 cases of ball bearings of foreign origin were found in the premises. They were found to be originating from Romania, Czechoslovakia, Russia and Poland.5. In the present matter, we are concerned with the 219 cases of ball bearings whi...

Arun Keshavrao Mone (Mane) and ors. Vs. Ramesh Balvant Baxi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR136; 2006(2)MhLj203

ORDERB.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an Appeal against Order under Order 43 Rule l(u) of Civil Procedure Code, challenging the Judgment of remand passed by First Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur, dated 19-8-2005 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 785 of 1998. The respondents have raised objection about its maintainability and according to them, Appeal under section 72(4) of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as B.P.T. Act) which is in the nature of Second Appeal as per section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is alone tenable. I have heard parties on this issue on various dates and on 25-10-2005, case was closed for passing orders on this objection. Parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on that date till today.2. Bare facts necessary for determination of this controversy can now be stated. The impugned judgment is delivered on an application under section 72 of B.P.T. Act and said application, in turn, was challenging the order dated 30-9-1998 ...

Savitra Bapu Shinde and ors. Vs. Rau Rama Shinde and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR423; 2006(2)BomCR73; 2006(2)MhLj243

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. While admitting this appeal on 10-12-1996, this Court framed the following two substantial questions of law :-(a) The Lower Appellate Court erred in recording the findings of tenancy in favour of the defendant No. 1. The lower Appellate Court ought to have framed issue of tenancy and referred the same to the Tenancy Court for its decision on the same to decide as to whether it is joint family tenancy or individual tenancy, especially, when the defendant No. 1 raised an objection regarding the same in his appeal memo and pleadings of the parties are more than clear. This is a substantial question of law.(b) The Lower Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, especially when the respondent has failed to produce evidence regarding acquisition of land out of his own earning. On the contrary he has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has no documentary evidence to prove his self earnings or separate income.2. Rama Shinde, a resid...

Dwarkaprasad Baluram Sharma and anr. Vs. Lokuram Ramchandra Premchanda ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)ACC756; 2006(1)ALLMR595

S.T. Kharche, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2nd May, 1987 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim No. 3 of 1985, whereby the liability of the Insurance Company has been restricted only to the tune of Rs. 50,000 .2. Mr. Jagtap, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that appellant No. 1 is owner of motor vehicle i.e. a jeep involved in accident. The jeep was duly insured with respondent No. 6 -United India Insurance Company Ltd. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 7th September, 1984 and Saviribai Premchandani who was the pillion rider on Luna Moped died in the said accident which was arising out of the jeep bearing No. MXH-4199 which had given dash to Luna. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that since the jeep involved in the accident was comprehensively insured with respondent Insurance Company, h the Tribunal has committed an error in restricting the liability of the Insura...

Mukand Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008[9]STR227

ORDER1. By this civil application, the petitioners seek payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount retained by the State.The original writ petition No. 2208 of 1991 filed by the petitioners was decided on 12-2-2004 and, the petition was allowed granting reliefs claimed therein. The petitioners should have or ought to have made any such claim for interest at the time when the order dated 12-2-2004 was passed. Having failed to do so and the petition having ended in his favour by that order, the civil application for grant of interest at subsequent stage is not tenable. The civil application is, therefore, rejected....

Ccex Vs. Delta Elastometal Compound Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had earlier rejected the plea of the Revenue to enhance the penalty. M/s. Delta Elastomental Co. Pvt. Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of rubber compound had availed CENVAT Credit wrongly on Capital goods for which penalty (Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-) was imposed by the lower authorities on the respondents. The penalty was imposed in one case under Section 11AC read with Rule 12 and in another case under Rule 26.2. The reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-enhancement of penalty is as follows: However, from the judgments of Hon'ble CEGAT in the cases relied upon by the respondent M/s. Delta Elastomel, Plant II, and so also in the case laws mentioned below it is noticed that Hon'ble CEGAT and Hon'ble High Court have held that penalty under Section 11AC equal to duty amount is maximum but not mandatory.C.C.E. v. TELCO Above judgments of Hon'ble CEGAT & High Court are binding ...

C.C.E. and C. Vs. Ravasco Transmission and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai confirmed Rs. 22,06,515/- towards duty on Ravasco Transmission & Packaging Pvt. Ltd., imposed an equal amount of penalty, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on its Director and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. R.R. Traders under Rule 209A for aiding the abetting the company above named. Hence these appeals by the affected persons.2. The Revenue is also aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner Revenue, therefore is also in appeal.5. The Id. Advocate appearing for the respondent has a preliminary objection. He avers that the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai, was examined by Central Board of Excise & Customs under the powers vested with it under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in order to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the said order. It was not satisfied that the impugned order was legal and proper. It thereupon directed the Commissioner to apply to CESTAT for ...

Axion Impex International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties and stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is filed by M/s. Axion Impex International Ltd. The applicant is a manufacturer of HDPE/FP yarn and ropes under 100% EOU Scheme. He had obtained permission from the Development Commissioner under Para 6.8(b) of the Export Import Policy 2002-07 to clear the yarn into domestic market on payment of appropriate duty. Accordingly, the applicant sold the said yam to his sister concern. The dispute is in regard to the valuation of yarn so sold. The department rejects the value on the ground that the applicant and the buyer are related to each other and therefore the price at which the goods are sold does not represent the transaction value. The Commissioner thereupon proceeded to determine the value under the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules.While doing do, he adopted cost construction method to determine the value under Rule 8 of the Cust...

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited Vs. the Assistant Commis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR79; (2006)200CTR(Bom)543; [2006]282ITR516(Bom)

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Dastur in support of this petition. Mr. Kotangale appears for the respondents.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Reply is already filed. Mr. Kotangale waives service.3. The petitioner herein is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of running a petroleum refinery at Mangalore. The petitioner has been constrained to challenge the order dated 29th March 2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range 3(2), Mumbai, issuing a notice of reopening the assessment of income of the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment done for the year 1998-99. According to the Commissioner, interest of Rs. 8,28,73,625/- remained to be added back while arriving at the book profit under Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act. However, it is not a case of the petitioner not disclosing the relevant information at the earlier occasion when the assessment was done. The relevant part of reasons enclosed therewith reads as follo...