Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Harish Silk Mills and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, who has upheld penal action against the applicants, who are manufacturers of Man Made Fabrics working under compounded levy scheme as they have not made payment of duty by due date as prescribed under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard Shri M.N. Sayed, Ld. Consultant for M/s Harish Silk Mills and M/s Singhvi Processors Pvt. Ltd., Mr. A.H. Raval, Ld.Consultant for M/s Govinda Processors and M/s Baikrishna Dyeing & Printing Mills. Request for adjournment by M/s Dinesh Dyeing & Printing Works is rejected, as we find that it is possible to take prima facie view by perusing records and hearing Ld. Jt. CDR.3. Prima facie, whenever there has been any delay in payment of duty, some penalty is warranted. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced penalties as under:(1) Harish Silk Mills : Rs. 40,000/-(2) Singhvi Processors Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 40,000/...

Patvolk, Division of Forbes Gokak Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing the Ld Advocate for the appellants and the Ld D.R. for the Respondent.2. The issue involved is recovery of duty ordered on optical fibre cable laid around Bombay under sea pursuant to 'Flag Project', a point at Prabhadevi to the territorial waters limit and consequent penal liabilities arrived against the two appellants herein.3. M/s VSNL, then a Public Sector Undertaking, filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of certain cables by declaring the length of the cable so imported based on invoices issued by the suppliers. However, no Bills of Entry were filed for the quantum of cables utilised in the repair and replacement work done to the existing cable network. The department, however, subsequently investigated the matter and demands of duties and penalties were made, consequent to this investigation, as it was learnt that the length of cable imported in the Flag Project on which duty was paid by Bills of Entry...

V.M. Prints Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal was dismissed vide order No. A/566/WZB/2004-C-II dated 02/07/2004 for non-compliance with the Stay Order dated 10/05/2004 by which pre-deposit of entire duty and penalty was directed. The applicants, who are represented by their advocate, state that the notice of hearing of stay application was not received by them; that even a copy of the order was not received and they came to know about the dismissal of their appeal only from the letter dated 16/09/04 of Jurisdictional Range Superintendent asking them to pay up the dues.2. In view of the above submission, which has not been found to be incorrect, we set aside the dismissal order and restore the appeal and stay application to their original numbers.4. Now we take up the stay application. The applicants' submission that the Mill was dosed since 23/11/1997 and the custody of the mill was given to M/s Waghbakriwala Rayons from 20/02/98 is borne out by letter dated 17/03/98 addressed to the Range Superintendent by M/...

UnimIn India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT377Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded and penalties imposed and stay recovery thereof arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman. The applicants are M/s Unimin India Limited, its Chairman, its Vice President, and M/s Satish Traders and M/s Taher & Co., their dealers.2. M/s Unimin India Limited is 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 100% Spun Bonded Non Woven Polypropylene Fabrics (SBNWPF). The unit obtained advance DTA permission to sell 742 Mts of the said product in the DTA during trial production. The allegation is that the said unit was evading payment of Excise Duty on the goods cleared for DTA by mis-declaring quantity/grade and value. This allegation is based on the statements given by Shri Milind Karkhanis , Vice-President of the unit who seemed to have admitted that the unit was receiving cash over and above the value shown in the Central Excise invoices from their dealers thereby by evading Central Excise Duty o...

Shri Pradeep Bahubhai Bhanushali Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is a case of misdeclaration of goods purported to be exported to Dubai, that is to say, instead of export of Basmati rice as declared by M/s. Shreeji Export Corporation and others made an attempt to export "Masooridal" by replacing the same from the containers.3. The appellant is said to be a transporter, who has been penalized with Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by the Collector of Customs under Section 114 of the Customs Act.4. The Collector of Customs in his impugned order made following observations in respect of the appellant at page 22 and 23, para 44 and 44. In this case, Pradeep Babubhai Bhanushali, owner of M/s. Shri Krishna Transport & Shipping Agency, was the link between Nitin Bhanushali, Rahul Shah and Customs House Agent, M/s. N.D. Oza & Sons and freight brokers, Baghwan Sachae and Jatin Kapadia. Advocate, Shri Jaykumar Ved, submitted report dated 10.8.92 to show cause notice on behalf of Pradeep Bhanushali. Pradeep Bhanushali appeared before me ...

Tyco Submarine Systems Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT101Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For a project called as SEA-ME-WE-2 (South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe - 2) under the Sea Cable Communication Network, M/s VSNL, the appellant herein entered into a consortium with 13 others to lay and use under the Sea Communication Cable to be provided in place by the contractor from the territorial point of the appellant into and under sea throughout from Singapore to Western Europe. M/s VSNL filed Bills of Entry and have discharged duty on the terrestrial length of the cables so used and also on the declared length of 23.10 km for undersea length of cable as imported and placed by the contractor. The declarations were made as per two invoices issued by M/s STC (contractor of consortium). However, subsequent enquiries revealed that the actual length of the cable laid would be more than the declared length of 2.4.41 kms. which was declared as well as the investigation revealed that on a repairs and replacement length of cable used separately, M/s VSNL has not paid any du...

Anil Nagpal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Mum.)745

1. IT(SS)A No. 266/Mum/1997 is an appeal by assessee, Anil Nagpal, for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 15th Oct., 1996 is directed against the block assessment dt. 31st Oct., 1997 framed by AO under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 (Act).2. IT(SS)A No. 291/Mum/1997 is an appeal by M/s Indian Bulk Carriers for the block period 1986-87 to 15th Oct., 1996 and is directed against the block assessment order dt. 31st Oct., 1997 passed under section 158BC of IT Act, 1961.3. As both these cases are inter-connected and involve common issues, so we are disposing them of together by the common order for the sake of convenience.4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.5. First we take up IT(SS)A No. 266/Mum/1997, being the appeal of assessee, Anil Nagpal.6. In IT(SS)A No. 266/Mum/1997, the assessee-appellant being Anil Nagpal has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal : "1. The learned AO erred in completing the block assessment o...

Shri Mahavir Prasad Mansinghka and anr. Vs. Shri Mahendrakumar Mansing ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR704; 2005(3)ARBLR129(Bom); 2005(4)BomCR752; 2005(2)MhLj1024

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act the Petitioners challenge the award dated 25th November, 2002 made by the Arbitral Tribunal. The facts that are relevant for deciding this petition are as under: 2. The Petitioner No. 1 and his four sons i.e. Petitioner No. 2 and three Respondents as members of the family entered into family arrangement dated 14-11-1994. The said family arrangement was titled as 'Memorandum of Understanding'-MOU, whereby several family properties, moveable and immoveable, family business etc. were distributed and or transferred between the parties. 'MP Mansingka Charities is the Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. That Public Trust had three trustees (i) the Petitioner No. 1, who was the Chairman; (ii) the Respondent No. 1 Mahendrakumar, who was the Managing Trustee and (iii) Shri O.P. Gupta, who was the trustee. In the MOU a clause was included in relation to this Public Tru...

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Magna Elastomeric Rollers ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR290; III(2005)BC224; 2005(4)BomCR661

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed under section 31 and 31(1)(aa) and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Some of the few facts of the present case are briefly stated as under : 2. A company known as Meghna Elastomeric Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company and was to set up a factory at plot no.17, Hissa no.2, survey no.80, Panchsheel Industrial Estate, within the village limits of Kharsundi, Taluka-Khalapur, District-Raigad. The company proposed to set up a plant for manufacturing rubber, rollers, Tread rubbers and Rubber moulded articles etc. In pursuance of the said proposal an application was made by the 7th respondent to the petitioner for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.37,50,000/- for the purpose of part finance towards the cost of the project on 27.2.1992. Respondent no.1 to 6 gave their personal guarantee for repayment of the said loan amount. On the basis of the said proposal and the guarantee of Respondent nos.1 to 6 a term loan of Rs.37,50,...

Shriram S. Yadav Vs. Chief Engineer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR212

Lavande A.P., J.1. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Sardessai, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks leave to join Union of India as respondent No. 3. Leave granted. The amendment to the cause title to be carried out forthwith.2. Rule. Mr. Badrinarayanan waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard forthwith.3. By this petition, the petitioner who is a registered contractor with respondent No. 1 challenges action of respondent No. 1 in removing his name from the list of approved contractors. By communication dated 13-11-2004, respondent No. 1 has removed the name of the petitioner from the list of approved contractors.4. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that before removing the name of the petitioner from the list of approved contractors, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner and, therefore, the action of respondent No. 1 is clearly in breach of the principle...