Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

National Organic Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we allow the stay petition unconditionally and proceed to hear the appeal itself. We find that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) can be set aside on a short ground.2. As per the facts on records, the appellants imported machines and there was a dispute as regards the valuation of the same, whereas the revenue wanted to include the value of the designs and drawings in the value of the machines. The appellant's contention was the same are not includable. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs vide his letter dated 23/03/99, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 10,30,612.55 against the appellants and ordered recovery of the same from the security deposit of Rs. 14,25,200/- paid by the appellants at the time of registration of contract. He also ordered that the balance security deposit should be refunded to the importers. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said orders we...

Marwah Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 9(2)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)3SOT339(Mum.)

The first ground of objection taken by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the estimate of rental income at Rs. 1.24 crores in place of actual receipt of Rs. 3,80,160 in respect of ground and first floor property by the assessee. The case of the assessee is that the CIT(A) ignored the fact, which was brought to his notice, that the rental income was fixed on the basis of agreement between the assessee company and the registered firm from whom the property had been acquired by the assessee and that the rental income had been accepted by the department in scrutiny assessment for five years, from assessment years 1989-90 to 1998-99. Assessee is also aggrieved for nonconsideration of the decision relied by the assessee in the case of CIT v. Indra & Co. (2004) 268 ITR 240 (Cal.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that if the agreement is found genuine in the case of property let out by the assessee and sublet by the tenant, the amount actually receiv...

Schering Corporation and anr. Vs. United Biotech (P) Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR901

Karnik D.G., J.1. This motion is taken out by the plaintiffs in their suit for injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their trade mark 'Netromycin' in any manner and from passing off their medicinal preparation under a deceptively similar brand name viz. 'Netmicin' or any other name deceptively similar name or mark. By this motion the plaintiffs claim an interim injunction restraining the defendants during the pendency of the suit from selling their products under the brand name 'Netmicin'.2. The plaintiffs and the defendants are engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Since prior to 1990, the plaintiffs are manufacturing, selling and distributing a medicinal product 'Netilmicin Sulphate' in injectable form under the brand name 'Netromycin'. The plaintiff No, 1 has also registered as a trade mark the word mark 'Netromycin' in class 5 of IV Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules. The plaintiffs' product is sold under the ...

Subhash Gogia Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR20; 2005(4)BomCR529

Rebello F.I., J.1. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 dated 15-2-1985. For the consideration of Rs. 12,62,376, the Petitioner was granted licence to use and occupy four sheds bearing Nos. 904, 905, 918 and 919 at Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Gundlav Industrial Estate situated at Valasad. Petitioner had to pay sum of Rs. 3,15,594/- as earnest money and the balance consideration was payable in terms of the agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that after he was put in possession, it was found that there was total lack of basic amenities and consequently he could not use the same and suffered losses. As a consequence petitioner was constrained to surrender four sheds to respondent No. 3. The petitioner was therefore, surprised to receive an order dated 5-5-1998 from respondent No. 3 where in it was alleged that a sum of Rs. 4,48,026/- was required to be paid by the petitioner towards the interest, penalty, service charges etc. and that the ...

Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of Indi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]134CompCas806(Bom); [2007]74SCL202(Bom)

1. The above appeals have been filed against the order and judgment of the learned single judge, dismissing the appellants' appeals filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 10F appeals were filed by the appellant against the order of the Company Law Board dated September 27, 2004. The Company Law Board passed the said orders in Company Petition No. 39 of 2003, filed by the respondent on May 2, 2003, seeking permission to investigate the affairs of the companies in exercise of powers conferred under Section 237(b)(i) of the Companies Act.2. Learned Counsel agreed that the order passed by us in the first of the above appeals would govern the result in the remaining appeals. We shall, therefore, refer to the facts in the first appeal.3. The learned judge has in his detailed judgment rejected each of the points raised by the appellants. Considering the facts of the present case, we do not think it necessary to deal with the questions of law raised by the appellants and d...

India Medtronics Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner vide his impugned order has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 76,86,875/- against M/s. India Medtronics Pvt Ltd., in respect of their product "custom pack" by holding that the same is a manufactured excisable goods classifiable under heading 9018.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In addition, personal penalty of identical amount has been imposed upon the said appellants under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with confirmation of interest. The goods seized from their premises have also been confiscated with an option to them to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs have been imposed upon the said appellants under the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In addition, plant, machinery, building and land belonging to the said appellants have been confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. Penalty...