Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Ankit International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT50Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application for rectification of mistake arises out of the Tribunal's Order Nos. A/261-266/ WZB/2005/C-I, dated 11-3-2005.2. The Bench in the impugned order observed that the present applicants, in whose name bills of entry were filed, have disowned the goods and do not wish to redeem them as they are not the owners. After having said so, in Paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the Bench observed that since the appellants did not contest the liability of the goods to confiscation under Sections 111(m) and (d) of the Customs Act the order of the Commissioner is upheld. The Bench also confirmed the demand for duty.3. The applicants contend that there is a mistake apparent in the order inasmuch as the Bench confirmed the demand for duty after holding that the applicants are not the owners of the goods.5. We do not see how this constitutes an error apparent. Under Section 12 of the Customs Act, duty is leviable on all imported goods. It is a fact that the goods have been imported in...

Sonibai Nathu Kuwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR953; 2005(6)BomCR261; 2005(3)MhLj1100

1. The petitioner filed Original Application No. 1 of 2003 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad, challenging a transfer order from Bopkhel to Sukrapur.2. The petitioner contended that she was the victim of sexual harassment by the Head Master, one Primary Teacher and Watchman of the Ashram School, where she was working. The petitioner complained to the superiors in respect of the same in April, 2002, and the petitioner proceeded on medical leave in the month of July, 2002. Despite the petitioner's complaints, the superior authorities did not take any cognizance of the complaints preferred by the petitioner. She ultimately lodged a complaint with the police station on 18th September, 2002. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Crime No. 60 of 2002 were registered by the police authoriti...

Shri Rajaram Rau Patil Vs. Shri Marcel De Pieade Braganza and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR315; 2006(1)MhLj436

S.S. Parkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally and is being finally disposed of. Counsel for the respondents waive service.2. This petition is filed challenging the Order dated 12th March, 2003, disallowing the application dated 20 2/2003 made on behalf of the plaintiff to frame issue of tenancy. That application was made in the following circumstances : The suit was tiled by the plaintiff/petitioner for a declaration that he was a lessee of an agricultural land, leased to him by defendants No. 1 and 2 who had in the agreement for sale agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 was impleaded in the suit as the person to whom the said property was sold by defendants No. 1 and 2. It was the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that since he is the tenant in respect of the agricultural land and because of the clause in the lease deed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could not have sold the property to ...

Waman S/O Mahadeo Waghmare Vs. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapith and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR276; 2005(4)MhLj177

1. Heard Kum. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 .2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in respondent No. 1 - Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapith, Akola as Demonstrator on 10-1-1969. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 22-1-1970. The next promotion of Associate Professor was given to the petitioner with effect from 1-2-1974 and finally, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 4-6-1984. It is submitted that the petitioner worked on the post of Professor for a period of one year and the respondent without any justification, vide order dated 3-7-1985, reverted the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the petitioner, the other candidates who were promoted to the post of Professor were also reverted to the post of Associate Professor. However, at later p...

Dayaram Maurya and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR488; 2005(4)MhLj763

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 2nd September, 2002 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, after hearing the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of an order dated 10th January, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 897 of 2001. Background facts and disputes2. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the property known as 'Ganga-Jamuna Cinemas' which houses twin cinema theatres known as Ganga and Jamuna. According to the petitioners by an agreement dated 1st May, 1985 the respondent No. 2 let out to them 2520 sq.feet area partly situated on the ground floor and partly in the stilts of the building for use as an office and a store. Execution of the tenancy agreement is denied by the respondent No. 2 and there are several litigations pending between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2. The present dispute relates to about 1000 sq.ft. of area situated in the stilts o...

Dharma S/O Tatua @ Dakru Dakhane Deceased Through Lrs. Bhagirathibai W ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR414; 2006(2)MhLj19

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This second appeal takes an exception to the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1982 whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 22-1-1982 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 150 of 1977 was set aside and the defendant was directed to deliver the possession of the suit land Gat No. 189 having area 1.27 acres to the plaintiff within a period of three months with a further direction to hold enquiry into future mesne profits.2. Brief facts are as under :The respondent/original plaintiff contended that he owned and possessed Kh. No. 174/2 and 176/1 (now Gat No. 189) admeasuring 1.27 acres and he was in cultivating possession of the said land even before and after the consolidation scheme was made applicable to village Maleghat in the year 1970. According to the plaintiff before June, 1977 the defendant was claiming ownership over the suit land and hence on 16-4-1977 he got his land m...

Yangir Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT299Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara has confirmed the differential demand of Excise duty of Rs. 14,49,718.96 covering the period from April, 1994 to August, 1994 by holding that as per Proviso to Notification No.101/93-CE. dated 27-12-93 the appellants were required to pay the duty amount not less than the excise duty leviable on the like goods produced or manufactured outside the hundred per cent EOU (the Appellants are an 100% EOU manufacturing Texturised/Crimped Polyester Yarn).2. None appeared for the appellants in spite of notices. Hence, we heard the Id. DR and perused the records including the relevant Notification. The text of the Notification is reproduced here below : "In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and in suppression of the Notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 97/91 dated 7-10-9...

Rocket Engineering Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT33Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are filed against an Order dated 29-4-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.2. The issue involved in the case is as to whether as per the provisions of Rule 57AC(5)(a)/ the appellants are liable to pay the Central Excise duty on the scrap generated at their job worker's end (while processing inputs sent by the appellants) if the said scrap is not returned by the job worker to them? 3. M/s. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd., Unit No. 1, Kolhapur, are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. IC Engines, P.D.Pumps and spray pumps. The IC Engines are to be manufactured by assembly of various parts. The appellants are purchasing castings of various parts of IC Engines on payment of Central Excise duty from various manufacturers. The said castings are required to be machined before using them as parts of IC Engines. The appellants are carrying out machining operations on the said castings in their factory and are also sending the said...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner set aside the order of the lower authority who demanded Rs. 38.723/- towards cess payable on textile machinery when imported into India.4. Textile machinery at the relevant time attracted 15% basic duty + Nil CVD under exemption notification No. 110/95-Cus Dated : 5.6.95. The respondent imported textile machinery. The lower authority demanded Cess leviable on such machinery. Cess is leviable under Section 5A of the Textile Committee Cess Act. 1963. In appeal the Commissioner does not discuss how exemption from CVD automatically exempts imported goods from levy of Cess as well. In fact we are able to comprehend what the Commissioner has in mind while setting aside the order of the lower authority.5. We observe that in Board's Circular No. MF(DR) F. No. 262/18-188-CX8 Dated 9.1.1989 it is clarified that goods exempted from payment of CVD (which is equival...

Dy. Cit, Ward 4(2) Vs. Advent Pharma (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4SOT42(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 1995-96 raising the following effective ground: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in treating the excise duty of Rs. 3,03,080 as allowable under section 43B when the said amount was relating to closing stock of current assessment year and sales of next assessment year totally disregarding the established principle of matching income with expenses available in sections 28 & 29." The main grievance of the revenue is that CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 3,03,080 added to the closing stock on account of excise duty paid by the assessee before filing of the return and claimed as payable under section 43B by virtue of first proviso thereof. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer of drugs and organic items. It showed finished goods in the closing stock at Rs. 25,18,192. This was kept, after manufacture, in the bonded wareho...