Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Tetra Pak (i) Ltd. and Shri Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT257Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are by a manufacturer of Asceptic packaging materials, herein after referred to as TIPL and the manager of TIPL, against the same order, by which the Commissioner has denied the benefit of notification 30197-Cus dated 1.04.97, 57/2000-Cus dated 27.04.2000 & 43/2002-Cus dated 19.04.2002 availed by TIPL & confirmed a demand duty of Rs. 1,39,98,148/- and imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962 along with interest under Section 28AB. Since goods were not available for confiscation & penalty was imposed under Section 114A. The Commissioner refrained from imposing any other penalty. A penalty on the Manager Shri. Kumar Iyer of Rs. 7 Lakhs was imposed under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s TPIL had imported 275 MTS of Nucrel 3990 valued at Rs. 2,34,46,000/-, free of customs duty under duty exemption Notification Nos. 30/97-Cus. 51/2000-Cus & 43/2002-Cus and under the DEEC Scheme vide Advance Licenc...

Hindustan Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing with Ld DR and considering the submission made an appeal and the written submission vide letter dated 7.3.2005 and the Ld Advocate and finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) has impugned order has recorded as follows :- "I find that the appellant is availing the benefit of the Notification No. 16/97 dated 18.4.1997. As per amendment in the Notification No. 16/97 from Notification No. 69/97 dated 3.12.1997 which is as :- "where the specified goods are chargeable to nil rate to duty or are already exempt from whole of duty of excisable leviable thereon under any other notifications, the clearances of specified goods used as inputs, shall not be deemed to be exempt under Clause (c) of paragraph 3." The appellants are manufacturing Diesel Engine which is used for manufacture of pump sets. Also claim exemption benefit under Notification No. 4/97 at the nil rate of duty as much the clearance value of Diesel Engine will be added in total clearance value. The duty calculated...

Weikfield Products Co. (i) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Consequent to an enquiry launched a notice was issued to the assessee alleging suppression of facts as regards clearance of goods to various C&F agents on stock transfer basis without filing any price declarations & not mentioning the discounts on the Central Excise invoices not submitting the invoices recorded by C & F agents therefore the discounts given at their C & F agents end, if any were not admissible, the valuation of the excisable goods cleared at the factory were considered undervalued clearances and duty was demanded on the prices charged by the C & F Agents to the distributors as per Section 4 (1) (a) (iii) of Central Excise Act 1944.2. The Additional Commissioner upheld the suppression charge in notice confirmed the demand of duty and ordered the imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC & Rule 173Q on the assessee and penalty on the Managing Director & the Excise Incharge & imposed interest under Section 11AB. "In the present case, the...

Jayaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides and considering that out of total amount of Rs. 3.37 crore of duty an amount of Rs. 1.66 crore already stand paid and the demands made in this case on Metallurgical Coke imported by this appellant a manufacturer of Pigiron and exporter of the same has been admitted to have been used by the importer, however, the charge is that the importer has not been able to meet the total export commitment required. The appellants have submitted that they are not liable to pay Anti-dumping demand which is included in the demands made. This plea is made on an interpretation of Rule 21 and the Anti-dumping Rule 1995 and the relevant notification. They also submit that if the pro-rata export made by them is considered then duty demands on this two account amounting to Rs. 55 lakhs would be reduced from the total duty demands and they may not be liable to any further duty demands payment.2. Considering the material on record the submission made and on finding that about 50% ...

Motillal Mahadev Sharma (Since Deceased Gangawati Motilal Sharma and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom344; 2006(2)BomCR409

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the advocates for the appellants and the respondent. Both of them in addition have given their written arguments. I have gone through the arguments and also the entire record and documents proved before the trial court.2. This appeal is filed by the Plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay dated 21st August 1998, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The present appellants are legal heirs of the original plaintiff, and after his death they were brought on record.3. It is to be noted at this juncture that the suit filed by the original plaintiff in 1979 came to be substantially amended after four years, in 1983, by introduction of a rider. There is a specific intention and the motive of the plaintiff in doing so upon which I will comment subsequently.4. The suit, as originally filed, was in respect of residential structures situated on Plot No. A-40 at Dabholkar Adda, Bombay-38. Original plainti...

Empire Industries Ltd. (Garlick Engineering Division) a Company Incorp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR308; (2005)IIILLJ313Bom

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.2.2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 6051 of 1995, filed against the order dated 23.9.1992 issued by respondent No. 1 under section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act'). By that order, continuance of the lock out at the factory of the appellant's company, which had started on 14.10.1991, had been prohibited. 2. The background facts, in nutshell, are as follows. The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956. It has a factory at Ambarnath which was engaged in the business of manufacturing of E.O.T. Cranes. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Unions of the workmen employed in the factory of the appellant-company. Respondent No. 3 claim to be a recognised union. The dispute between the two unions is not relevant for deciding this letters patent appeal, since the issue t...

The Senior Inspector of Police and ors. Vs. Shri Sudam Bhausaheb Bhale ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR852; 2005(5)BomCR294

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Sudam Bhausaheb Bhalekar-respondent herein was recruited as police constable in the police department on 1.7.1970. He was promoted as head constable somewhere in the year 1982. In the month of May, 1993, he was attached to Khadki Police Station. On 28.5.1993, one complaint was made against him by Ramesh Babanrao Ranaware that he was demanding bribe for returning his tempo and its documents which had met with an accident. Based on that complaint, the trap was laid by Anti Corruption Department and he was trapped accepting illegal gratification. He was tried before the Special Court, Pune for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide his judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 convicted him for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine o...

Castrol Limited Vs. Admiral Shipping Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)BC150; 2005(3)BomCR507; [2006]132CompCas241(Bom); [2005]64SCL203(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two petitions can be conveniently disposed off together because the facts in both the cases are substantially identical and the defence raised by the company is also substantially similar. Few facts of the company petition no.197 of 2004 which were argued at length before me are briefly enumerated as under: 2. During the period June 1999 to February 2000 the petitioner supplied goods to the respondent as per the Purchase Order placed by the respondent company with the petitioner. The goods supplied were to provide various kind of lubricants and oil to the vessel being M.V.Sea Grace I and MVC Jane I. In respect of the said goods sold and supplied by the petitioner to the respondent company the petitioner issued various invoices to the company for supply of the said goods. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as on 25.2.00 there was an outstanding amount of US$ 62,046.96 as due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner company. It is further the case of ...

Mrs. Rajashree Alias Vanita Rajesh Dixit Vs. Shri. Rajesh Nagesh Dixit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom352; 2005(4)ALLMR63; 2006(2)BomCR416; II(2005)DMC824

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these petitions challenge the order passed below Exhibit-50 in Petition No. 640 of 2002 by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune on 6.9.2004. The first petition is filed by the wife whereas the second petitioner has been filed by the husband and hence, both of them are being decided by this common judgment and order. 2. Rule. Respondent waives service in the respective petitions. By consent, rule is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. The marriage of the parties was solemnised on 3.3.2002 at Pune. They returned to Pune on 18.3.2002 by cutting short their honeymoon trip on account of ill health of the wife. The husband resumed his duties on 19.3.2002 and within few days, the wife was hospitalised. She left the matrimonial home on 3.4.2002 as she wanted to go to her parents home at Nasik. The wife suffered an abortion. She returned to the matrimonial home but within few days i.e. sometimes in the month of May, 2002 she went back to her parents home...

Mr. Minoo Rustomji Shroff and ors. Vs. Charity Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR532; 2005(4)BomCR570; 2005(2)MhLj1135

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed interalia seeking relief for modification of the scheme which was settled by this court in Suit No.689 of 1906 on 18.6.1910 and has been amended from time to time by various orders passed by this Court. The present Miscellaneous Petition is filed for a further amendment of the scheme of the trustees of the Parsee Panchayat Trust. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under: 2. Originally in suit no.689 of 1906 the scheme was sanctioned by this court on 18.6.1990 pertaining to the election of trustees of the funds and immovable properties of the Parsee Panchayat. The said scheme is in force as on date. Briefly speaking the scheme interalia provides for establishment of an Electoral College known as 'Anjuman Committee' to be constituted as contemplated under the scheme. It is contemplated under the scheme that the said committee must consist of Parsees coming from two separate streams. One by General Election from the Genera...