Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Sondur Rajini Vs. Sondur Gopal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj688

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Ms. Nagarathn, learned counsel, waives service for the respondent. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal, by the wife, is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-1-2005 rendered by the Family Court in Interim Application No. 235 of 2004 filed in Petition No. A-531 of 2004, allowing the said application filed by the respondent-husband under Section 1(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'H.M. Act')- By that application, the respondent had prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant as not maintainable on the ground that the parties are citizens of Sweden and not domiciled in India. The appellant's petition was filed inter-alia seeking a decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of H.M. Act, for custody of minor children and for maintenance.3. The factual matrix, sans unnecessary details, is as follows : The appellant...

Express Tours and Travels Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC561

1. Briefly the facts are that the appellants are providing cab service to their customers. Service Tax is payable by operators who operate 'Rent a Cab' scheme as defined under Section 65(91) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. Such service providers are required to register themselves under Section 69 of the said Act and are required to pay Service Tax under Section 68. The appellants have admittedly done neither.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority who confirmed the demand for Service Tax and penalties, interest etc. Hence this appeal.3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants contends that 'Rent-a-Cab Scheme' applies to a person who is engaged in the business of renting a cab and that they do nor rent a cab but only provide cabs/taxis on hire basis; that renting is different from hiring; that renting involves parting with the possession of a cab to the customer; that a Rent-a-Cab Scheme should be understood in the context of Rent-a...

Diambel N.V. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT289Tri(Mum.)bai

1. A consignment of rough diamonds belonging to the appellants herein, a company registered in Belgium, was sent to Mumbai by Air. The said consignment was exported on or about 27.2.2001 by the appellants and the goods were to be purchased by the consignee one Mr Vijaybhav in Mumbai. On or about 28.2.2003 M/s Vijaybhav appears to have been searched by the Customs department in connection with alleged Forged licence case for importation of consignment of rough diamonds. The appellant on coming to know about this aspect of the conduct on part of the importers in India, immediately instructed their Bankers and the local Indian Bank to return the documents with respect to the consignment to the Bank and close the file. They also addressed various messages to the carriers of the consignment not to deliver the parcel to the consignee. The local Indian Bank returned the documents to the appellants' Bankers and no transaction or payment has been made or effected for the said consignment. 1.2 ...

Raymond Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT465Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the processing of goods falling under Chapter 62 and in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapters 51, 55, 62 & 63 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 in their factories at Chhindwara, Thane and Jalgaon. They have centralized marketing department at Thane. They charged uniform price from buyers irrespective of place of delivery and place of manufacture of particular goods. They delivered goods from their different factories to their buyers situated throughout, by handing over to the goods to the nearest transporter. The cost of transporting the goods from factories to the nearest transporter was incurred by them and it formed part of the ex-works price. The aforesaid marketing pattern was continued by the appellants right from the year 1978 and throughout the period in dispute in the above appeals (period covered is June 1997 to December 1999). The appellants filed a Writ Petition No. 352/1983 before Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging, ...

Puroshattam C. Thacker Vs. Cc, Kandla and Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT143Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issues involved is whether the volume of work handled at Kandla and the volume of work handled at Mumbai are to be taken to fulfill the norms laid down under the Public Notice.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellant was granted a CHA licence at Kandla and Mumbai on the regular basis. By a show cause notice dated 03.07.2000, the appellants were called upon to show cause as to why the licence granted to them at Kandla should not be revoked on the ground that the appellants had failed to fulfill the norms laid down under the Public Notice for grant of CHA licence. Thereafter, by an order dated 15.01.2001, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla revoked the licence on the ground that the appellants have not handled the volume of work at Kandla as required under the Public Notice. On the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, the licence issued at Mumbai Customs was also revoked.4. The matter has been referred to the La...

Paresh Bhanaji Nanda, Omprakash Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties arise out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Customs (P) Mumbai.The case relates to seizure of contraband such as bail bearings, textiles table clocks, emergency lamps, padlocks as well as pharmaceutical products.2. Shri V.M. Doiphode, Ld. Advocate appears for Shri Paresh Bhanaji Nanda, the Octroi Agent. Shri Omprakash Gupta, is the Keeper of Godown in which contraband goods covered by Order No. CCP/KPM/ADJN/R&I/13/2004 was stored; Amit Keshwani is the owner of that godown, Shri Shambhulal Purushottam Bhansali is the owner of the godown in which goods covered by Order No. CCP/KPM/ADJN/R&I/14/04, according to the department, would have been stored.3. None appears for any of the applicants except Shri Paresh Banaji Nanda. On hearing the Ld. Counsel and perusing the records, we find that no prima facie case has been made out for total waiver, in view of the fact that prima facie the case is based on state...

Aasu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT533Tri(Mum.)bai

2. At this threshold stage, itself it was pointed out by the Ld DR, that the present appeal against an order of Chief Commissioner of Customs, communicated by his subordinate being an executive order and relying upon the decision in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. 2002 (145) ELT 352 and V V E Forwarding Services 1999 (114) ELT 952, this appeals is not maintainable.3. Ld Advocate contends that term 'Commissioner', would include the 'Chief Commissioner'. Therefore this appeal should be held to be maintainable. No contra decisions have been show to us. The arguments advanced cannot be accepted. The appeal is required to be rejected as not maintainable....

L.D. Textiles Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals were taken up together for disposal as the issue is common. Appeal E/1477/99 is filed by M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Ltd. and Appeal E/1410/00 is filed by the Revenue. Both the appeals are filed against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), albeit by two different Commissioners.2. In regard to the appeal of L.D. Textiles Industries Ltd., we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the lower authority holding that polyester waste (synthetic waste) 52% or 65% and viscose staple fibre 48% or 35% are not excisable goods and held that the goods in question are classifiable under chapter heading 55.05. The appeal is against this finding of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. In appeal E/1410/00 in regard to the same goods, the Revenue is in appeal against the order of another Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the matter to the original authority for de novo adjudication with the observations that he shall examine the issue afresh in the li...

Barish Plast Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeals are being disposed off by this common order, M/s Barish Plast Pvt Ltd has supplied Raw Material to their appellant herein who had manufactured 'Plastic half round rain water System' and have supplied the goods back to M/s Barish Plast Pvt Ltd and have been paid job charges at different rates.2. The job workers claimed the benefit of notification 1/93 which was denied to them on the grounds that the goods manufactured on job work were bearing the brand name of Barish Plast Pvt Ltd, Show cause notice dated 11.1.99 was issued proposing classification of goods manufactured under heading 39.17.00 as pipes for the period April 1995 to July 1998.The appellants contested this notice on the grounds of the goods being classified under heading 39.26.90 and the same were exempted under different notification i.e. no. 15/94 without any turnover limitation, contest was also made on grounds of limitation. The valuation arrived was also contested along with eligibility of Modvat credi...

Shri Anil Hitkari and Hitkari Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In appeal No. 1940/41, the appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture of inter alia carpets / floor coverings and the assessee dispatching duty on such goods cleared by them including to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. The appellant in appeal No. 1941/04 is the Director of the assessee company herein. They were issued show cause notice dated 4.01.2002 and alleged that Maruti Udyog Ltd., vide letter dated 24.12.01 has informed the department about the price increase given to the appellant who had supplied by OE equipment during the period.Proceeding to recover the Central Excise Duty of Rs. 13,73,048/- from the assessee under Section 11A(c) of the Central Excise Act by invoking the extended period were initiated. Penalty was proposed under 11AC and Rule 173Q, interest was also to be demanded under Section 11AB and penal action proposed on the Director under Section 173Q and 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide order dated 10.04.2003, Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty d...