Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Basf Strenics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals have been filed by Revenue and the cross objection has been filed by the respondent. M/s. BASF Styrenics Pvt.Ltd., the respondents import Ethyl Benzene from M/s. BASF, Germany. On a reference from Jawahar Custom House, the Deputy Commissioner, GATT Valuation Cell in Mumbai Custom House has passed the order-in-original holding that the respondents and the suppliers are related to each other and he has ordered for loading the value of Ethyl Benzene by 1%.2. The respondents have also imported Styrene Monomer from M/s. BASF, Singapore. On a reference from Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Surat, the Deputy Commissioner, GATT Valuation Cell has passed a similar order loading the value by 1% as in the case of Ethyl Benzene.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order of the original authority with the following finding:- The appellants are having a license know how agreement with Licensor of Germany for production of different BASF grades of polystyrene. The app...

Phonix Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Service Tax amount is not quantified. Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that since the Service Tax amount is not quantified the stay petition is not maintainable and the same is to be dismissed.3. We, therefore, dismiss the stay petition and the case is fixed for regular hearing on 16-8-2005....

Vanati Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they are directed against the same impugned order vide which demand of duty of Rs. 4,68,608/- has been confirmed against M/s. Vinati Organics Ltd., alongwith imposition of personal penalty of identical amount. Personal penalties of varying amounts has been imposed on the other appellants under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. As per the facts on records. M/s. Vinati Organics Ltd., were manufacturing Isobutyl Benzene IBB and its various bye products. The raw materials 20/209/2 for the said goods is propylene and toluene.During the course of manufacture of finished goods certain amount of propylene is left unreacted. Most part of the said gas is allowed to be flared in the atmosphere. Some part of the said gas is used by the appellants in their boiler for the purposes of generation of heat and some part is cleared by them through pipeline to their neighbouring unit M/s. Viral Alkalis Ltd., wher...

Hotel Rosalia Pvt. Ltd. by Its Managing Director, R.N. Bhate Vs. G.B. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR73; 2005(3)MhLj993

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner-landlord/plaintiff has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, thereby, challenged the order dated 3rd August, 1990, passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Pune, in Appeal No. 334 of 1986, thereby, allowed the Appeal of the respondent-tenant, whereby, the judgment and order dated 9th April, 1985, passed by the Small Cause Court, Pune, granting the decree in favour of the petitioner-landlord was set aside. The cross-objections filed by the petitioner-landlord was also dismissed. Therefore, present Writ Petition.2. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a Suit for possession on the ground of arrears of rent, damages, nuisance and additions and alterations in the suit premises by the respondent-tenant, being the owner of the premises in question bearing C.T.S. No.12/1, Cannaught Road, Pune. The respondent is in possession of two rooms on a monthly rent of Rs.45/-, including educational cess and water charges, totalling Rs.68.70/- p.m....

Five Ocean Ship Repairing and Marine Services Llc Vs. Mt symphony 1 Ex ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR621

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of UAE DHS 60,242/-along with further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and/or realisation. In addition to the said claim the plaintiff has also claimed that the 1st defendant vessel m.t. SYMPHONY (ex-ARABIAN LADY) along with her hull, tackle, engines, machinery, boats, apparel and other paraphernalia be condemned and sold under the orders and directions of this Court towards the satisfaction of the suit claim by the plaintiffs. Few facts of the case in the background of which the present suit is filed are as under : 2. The plaintiffs claim that the 2nd defendant herein is the owner of vessels known as m.t. ARABIAN QUEEN, m.t. SHAMSA, m.t. ARABIAN VICTORY and m.t. ARABIAN BEAUTY. It is the case of the plaintiffs that each of the aforesaid vessels are the sister vessels of the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the said defendant no. 2 is the owner of not ...

Dallah Albaraka Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Mt symphony 1 Ex. Mt arabian L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR589

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs inter alia for the relief of declaration that there is a due and payable a sum of US $ 7,806,188.77 to the plaintiffs by a company known as Gulf Oil in accordance with the particulars of claim annexed as Exhibit 'E' to the plaint. The plaintiffs have also sought a declaration that the Gulf Oil had failed and neglected and/or refused to pay the said sum or any part thereof. A further declaration is sought that the repayment of the said sum is duly secured by a valid and subsisting mortgage of the defendant vessel in favour of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce and/or crystallise the said security of the defendant vessel mortgaged to them by the arrest, condemnation and sale. The plaintiffs have also sought a declaration that they are entitled to obtain possession of the said vessel and retain possession thereof. By prayer clauses (b) and (c) of the said suit the plaintiffs have sought a manda...

Mutukrishnan Nanikram Rajlingam and ors. Vs. Gulab Juman Mehtar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR933; 2005(5)BomCR82; 2005(4)MhLj347

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioners-landlords have invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and pray to consider their case of bonafide need as contemplated under the provisions of The Bombay Rents Hotel Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short 'Bombay Rent Act'), as Small Causes Court, Pune (Trial Court) by its judgment and order dated 25th October, 1991, granted the decree for possession, but the Additional District Judge, Pune (Appellate Court) in the Appeal filed by the respondent-tenant by judgment and order dated 28th April, 1992, allowed the Appeal and set aside the Trial Court's order that resulted into dismissal of the suit in question.2. The suit premises consists of a room on the ground floor in the house bearing No. 105, situated at Wanawadi Bazar, Pune. The tenancy was monthly @ Rs. 5/- exclusive of taxes. The tenant was in arrears of rent since 1/1/1977. By Notice dated 31/1/1989, tenancy was terminated with effect from 28/2/1989 on th...

Shree Natwar Talkies Vs. Collector and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR257; 2006(1)MhLj269

Kukday S.P., J.1. In this petition, the petitioner impugns notice dated 29-6-1989 issued by Collector, Jalgaon, for recovery of excess amount of entertainment duty.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were several other petitions, forming three groups. In one of the groups, the point for consideration was the population of the town concerned. In other group, the dispute relating to the recovery of the amount for the intervening period between the date of licence and delivery of permit, was involved. It is made clear that the points raised in this group of petitions are not decided earlier.3. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner runs a cinema talkies at Jalgaon, by the name and style 'Shree Natwar Talkies' and holds a valid license and permit therefor under the provisions of Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953. As per the policy of the Government, exemption from payment of entertainment duty is given for some of the films exhibited for educational, sc...

Dadasaheb Dhondiba Jagtap Vs. Anant Shivram Poman

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR821

S.R. Sathe, J.1. The Appellant Dadasaheb Jagtap, the original plaintiff, in Regular Civil Suit No. 101 of 1980 and the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 131 of 182, has preferred these two appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 196 of 1987 and Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1987, whereby, both the said appeals were allowed and the decree for specific performance granted by the Court of CJJD, Saswad, in favour of the Original Plaintiff was set aside and the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 131 of 1982 was also set aside and the suit filed by Anant Poman, the present respondent was decreed in his favour and present appellant Dadasaheb Jagtap was directed to hand over possession of the suit property to Anantrao Poman.2. Brief facts giving rise to these two appeals are as under:The suit property bearing Survey No. 114 situated at Village Supla, Taluka: Purandar, District Pune is owned by the respondent. On 12.6....

Mamaji Talkies Vs. Collector and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj864

S.P. Kukday, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner impugns notice dated 29-6-1989 issued by Collector, Jalgaon, for recovery of excess amount of entertainment duty.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were several other petitions, forming three groups. In one of the groups, the point for consideration was the population of the town concerned. In other group, the dispute relating to the recovery of the amount for the intervening period between the date of licence and delivery of permit, was involved. It is made clear that the points raised in this group of petitions are not decided earlier.3. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner runs a cinema talkies at Bhusawal by the name and style 'Shree Mamaji Talkies' and holds a valid license and permit therefor under the provisions of Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953. As per the policy of the Government, exemption from payment of entertainment duty is given for some of the films exhibited for educational, sc...