Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aryl Pharmaceuticals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT320Tri(Mum.)bai

a) The assessee was manufacturing Medicaments under Technical Collaboration/advice from M/s Lyka Labs Ltd. The Medicaments so manufactured were sold to M/s Lyka Lab. b) Revenue has aggrieved that the value for the purpose of assessment in this case has not been correctly determine by the lower authorities. The plea is that the price at which Lyka Labs sold the goods to be the assessable value and not the sale price of the assessee to Lyka Labs. c) The Commissioner (Appeals) has come to a finding that it was necessary for the department to charge and prove relationship and mutuality of interest between the appellant & M/s Lyka Labs under the provision of Section 4 (1) (a) (iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 with corroborative evidence and manufacture of the goods under technical collaboration does not make the present proceedings to render the invocation of appellant to be a related person and that evidence has to be brought that the technical collaboration has resulted in extra comm...

C. Natwarlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT284Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants have imported certain items which are called as 'C Tanble Tents (Laminaria Tents)'. There is a dispute on the classification of the imported goods, the appellant is claiming classification under Heading 99.04 as contraceptive, while Revenue issues a Show Cause Notice and proposes demands, proposing to classify it under Heading 3006.10 vide demand notice dated 26.10.1998 much after clearance of goods classified under Heading 99.04. However, on 29.12.1999, a corrigendum was issued proposing to reclassify the goods under Heading 1212.99 and not 3006.10 as proposed in Notice dated 26.10.98, after it was contested by the importer by a reply to that notice that their goods were not sterilsed and were therefore not in the nature of medicaments and excluded from Chapter 30.2. From the catalogue of produced, it is apparent that these items are used as a hygroscopic cervical dilator which could be used wherever cervical dilation or softening of the cervix is desired. Same exam...

Baader Schulz Laboratories, Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants M/s Baader Schulz Laboratories (herein after referred to as Baader for short) is engaged in the manufacture of Vitamin Pre-Mixes including Feed Supplements for animal feeding in its factory at Daman.The other appellants are the importers & other persons found concerned with the imports & sale of the imported goods to M/s Baader Schulz Laboratories require raw material, viz various Feed Grade Vitamins, Anti-Oxidants, carriers & procure them, from Indian sources evidently imported as also import them. Accordingly, they purchased poultry Feed Supplement AV 110 from M/s Sonam International (herein after referred to as Sonam). Who had imported the same.1.2 Pursuant to an information that Sonam was importing 3rd country goods from Nepal by mis-declaration & by misuse of notification 40/02, 29/96 DRI-Lucknow Officers initiated an inquiry. 89 bags containing 2,225 kgs of Poultry Feed Supplement purchased form Sonam was seized at the premises of Baader on 30.05.20...

Koparan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant is an assessee under the Central Excise Act availing Modvat Credit. The demand of Rs. 85,05,958/- imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs along with interest under Section 11AA. On the grounds that consequent to the order in appeal filed by the assesee, the assessee has taken credit of Rs. 85,05,958/- on their own. This act was considered to be a gross mis-demeanour on part of the assessee.Therefore the consequential duty demand, penalty and interest were arrived at by the department. Hence this appeal.2. After hearing both sides and considering the issue it is found that their were four cases, totalling to a credit of Rs. 85,05,958/- which were held to be not eligible. Therefore the assessee filed appeals against these orders of ineligibility. The Commissioner(Appeal) remanded three cases out of the four for denovo consideration and allowed the appeal in one case. Consequently, the assessee suo motto took the credit of the amount in all these four cases that resulted in the pro...

Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ms. Richa Chadha

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)282ITR1(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-XXI, Mumbai dated 12.04.2000. The main issue involved in the appeal is that the CIT(A) is erred in allowing the claim for deduction of Rs. 22,24,193/- Under Section the Act, eventhough the assessee has not regularly employed 10 workers during the relevant previous year.2. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of deduction Under Section 80IA on the sole ground that during the assessment year in question, the concern of assessee M/s Goodwill Industries did not employ ten or more workers as required in Section 80IA(2)(v). On 22.3.2000, the assessing officer conducted a spot enquiry at the factory premises of the assessee at Silvasa. On that day, he found that manufacturing of chemical products was completely stopped as per the statement of Sri H. Prajapathi, who was employed as chemist. According to him, Goodwill industries had stopped manufacturing activities in the month of October, 1998. As the industry was not...

Gafoor Dastagir Shiekh Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj463

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition takes exception to the externment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VIII, dated January 28, 2004 and the order passed by the appellate authority confirming the externment order in Appeal No. EXT 01/2004/190/VS-5 by its decision dated 17th May 2004. Both the decisions are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The proceedings against the Petitioner for externment were initiated in exercise of powers under section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act. After issuing show cause notice, the competent authority considered the explanation offered by the Petitioner and by the impugned order directed the Petitioner to remove himself from the City of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and District Raigad for a period of two years, having found that the materials on record clearly attracted action under section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. That order was taken in appeal by the Petitioner, which appeal has been rejected. The...

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a Company Incorporated and Registered Und ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3500; 2005(3)MhLj512

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner seeks to quash the complaint dated 6-11-2004 stated to have been filed by the respondent No.1 with the respondent No.2 and further, for the direction to restrain the respondent No.2 from carrying out the investigation in relation to the said complaint.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the course of its regular business, it had sanctioned loan to the respondent No.1 and accordingly had disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- in terms of the loan agreement dated 15-9-2000. Having obtained the said loan, the respondent No.1 issued three post-dated cheques -one dated 1-7-2002 towards the repayment of the principal amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- and the remaining two dated 15-9-2001 - one for a sum of Rs. 18,09,600/- towards the interest payable upto 15-9-2001 and another for Rs. 14,32,807/-towards the interest payable for the period from 15-9-2001 to 30-6-2002. The cheques tow...

Altaf Ismail Sheikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3584

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In all the petitions, rule, and by consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the records. Heard at length the learned Advocates for all the petitioners as well as the learned APP. 3. In all these petitions, the approval for recording of the commission of the offence as well as the FIR No.6 of 2005 recorded on 7th February, 2005 under provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, hereinafter called as 'the MCOC Act', are sought to be challenged on various grounds including the ground that the activities which are disclosed as the offence of organized crime under the MCOC Act in the said FIR refer to the period prior to 24th February, 1999, the day on which the MCOC Act came into force and that therefore, considering the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Const...

Shantaben Mohan Rathod and ors. Vs. International Airport Authority of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj143

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.2. Respondent No. 1 to this petition is International Airport Authority of India which owns the Airport at Vile Parle, Mumbai and certain lands adjoining thereto which include amongst others an area admeasuring 11,351.1 Sq. Mtrs. divided into various survey numbers and situated near the Airport opposite Hanuman Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai. These lands have been acquired for the benefit and expansion of Airport by taking resort to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Necessary notification was issued by the then Government of Bombay under Section 4 of the said Act way back on 20th August, 1947 followed by notification under Section 6 on 9th June, 1948. This was followed by an award and execution of documents recording the taking of possession and making entries in the land records in the year 1952. Respondent No. 2 is the Estate Officer of respondent No. 1 appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc...

R. Kantilal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Bom)281; [2005]277ITR246(Bom)

1. Heard.2. Rule.3. The advocate on record for the Revenue waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.4. Having taken into consideration the relevant aspects, we are of the view that the application made by the petitioner on 10th Sept., 1997, seeking extension under Section 80HHC(2)(a) for realisation of outstanding export proceeds requires reconsideration. It appears from the available record that for the exports, the payment has been received on various dates reflected in Exhibit 'K' annexed to the petition. The payments that have been received are, however, delayed. The explanation given by the assessee for delayed receipt of proceeds for exports vide aforesaid invoices was, 'due to slackness in the diamond industries and they are also facing financial crises'. The CIT seems to have over-stretched the matter by observing that assessee ought to have established with evidence that he was unable to bring the convertible foreign exchange for the reasons beyond control. The asse...