Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Gira Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length. Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 had each imported 74.10 MTs of the impugned goods and declared the same as Trichloro 1-3-5 Triazine at unit price of Singapore $ 750 PMT CIF. The impugned goods were of Chinese origin but the same were imported from M/s. Sun Flower General Trading Co., Ajman, U.A.E. and G.A.International, Dubai, U.A.E. The related five Bills of Entry were filed between 30-7-1994 and 2-12-1994 through the same CHA. The goods were allowed provisional clearance against PD Bond pending chemical test and verification of value. On subsequent test, such goods were found to be 'Cyan uric Chloride'.2. On verification, the Customs authorities have ascertained the value of large number of imports of Cyan uric Chloride of Chinese origin imported at unit price of US $ 1860 PMT to US $ 1950 PMT during the period June, 1994 to November, 1994 as against the price declared by the appellants which was Singapore $ 750 equivalent to US $ 500 PMT only. As ...

Rajan Virji and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants a CHA Licencee, issued by the Mumbai Custom House under the provisions of Customs House Agents' Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR 1984 for short).2.1 Vide an order dated 23-7-2001, the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai initiated and enquiry under Regulation 23(1) of CHALR-1984 for alleged violations of Regulations 13,14(b), 14(d) and 20(7) of the CHALR 1984.2.2 The Enquiry Officer conducted and concluded the enquiry and based on his report, the Commissioner, while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Articles III and IV i.e. violation of Regulations 14(b) and 20(7) of CHALR 1984, before considering the reply of the appellants, and after hearing them, ordered the cancellation of Licence and forefeiture of security amount. Hence the present appeal. (a) There is force in the appellants' contention that the impugned order is cryptic, arbitrary and non speaking. There is an apparent conflict and the order of the Commissioner, communicated...

Amar Wire and Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(195)ELT295Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On matter being called, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant.Accordingly, we have heard the Ld. JDR and have gone through the impugned orders.2. The issue involved is as to whether Copper rods manufactured out of copper bars would be entitled to Notification No. 199/66 or not. The Ld. DR brings to our notice that subsequently Notification No. 3/91 dtd. 30.01.1991 was issued under the provisions Section 11C of Central Excise Act, 1944 holding that during the period, there was practice of not paying duty on the copper wire rods manufactured out of copper wire bars. The Tribunal vide its final order No. E/197/97-B dt 10.01.97 had considered the said notification as also Revenue's contention that since the demand was already confirmed against the appellant before the issuance of the notification, the benefit of the same cannot be extended but did not favour with the above contention. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo con...

S.S. Clearing and Forwarding Vs. Cc(G)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are a licencee under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "CHALR 1984' for short). Vide Order dated 15.7.2005 their security of Rs. 25,000/- was ordered to be forfeited and the licence issued was revoked.2. Brief factual background relevant is that a Bill of Entry dated 12.2.2001 by the importer M/s. S.B. Impex was field declaring the same as Sodium Bicarbonate, where the appellants were the Customs House Agent. The goods were examined and thereafter allowed clearance.Subsequent to this clearance, during the search of the godown 921 bags were seized in a warehouse outside the town, by the officers, on an allegation that the description on the same shown was 'Titanium Dioxide', which were said to have been cleared on the above said Bill of Entry filed by M/s. SB Impex. Show Cause Notice dated 27.3.2002 came to be issued by the Commissioner, consequent to the enquiries made.This Show Cause Notice did not make any allegation ag...

Indian Bank Vs. Dena Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)BC65

1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant No. 13 Indian Bank being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-1, Mumbai in Original Application No. 1008/2000 (High Court Suit No. 4627 /1997). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the Original Application with costs in favour of the original applicants Dena Bank and ordered the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 13,34,53,308.78 with future interest at the rate of 18.25% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit in the High Court till realization of the said amount.The learned Presiding Officer also ordered that the hypothecated goods and book debts described in Exhibits "L" & "I" to the Original Application be sold/ realized and net sale proceeds/realization thereof be paid to the applicant Bank namely Dena Bank. He also...

Charanbir Singh Jolly Vs. Ito (Eighth)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT89(Mum.)

These two appeals are filed by the assessees for the assessment year 1998-99. These appeals are filed against the orders of the CIT(A)-XIII at Mumbai passed on 19-12-2001 and arises out of the assessments completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessees are brothers and the facts and circumstances of the cases are one and the same and, therefore, these appeals are disposed of through this common order.The assessees herein had sold their houses situated at Hiranandani Gardens, Powai in Mumbai. Shri Charanbir Singh Jolly sold the house for a consideration of Rs. 22,05,372 and Shri Kanwarbir Singh Jolly sold his house for a consideration of Rs. 22,18,8 10. The houses were acquired by the brothers through agreements dated 31-3-1993 for a consideration of Rs. 5,25,000 and Rs. 5,85,056 respectively. The payments towards acquisition of the house property were made by the assessee in instalments between the period from 25-7-1992 and 17-6-1996. While computing the capit...

Arun Ramchandra Shirke and anr. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR312; 2006(2)BomCR818; 2005(4)MhLj1165

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assailed an appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) (for short 'the said post') and are seeking directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint them on the said post.2. The petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 1 - Corporation and at the relevant time they were working as Assistant City Engineer (Electrical). Pending this writ petition, petitioner No. 2 has been promoted to the post of Deputy City Engineer (Electrical) by order dated 26-9-2001 and in view thereof the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pressed this petition only for petitioner No. 1 - Arun Shirke.3. It is not disputed that both the petitioners were qualified and eligible for the said post which became vacant in March, 1996 in view of the retirement of Shri A. V. Harkare. The said post remained vacant till 2nd week of October, 1999. Respondent No. 3 cam...

Changdeo Shivaji Kamble Vs. Nagsen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR625; 2006(3)BomCR345; 2006(1)MhLj40

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dismissing the petitioner's application for bringing L.Rs. of the dead opponent on record. The petitioner filed a dispute, inter alia, against one Sarubai who was arrayed as the opponent No. 2. This dispute was filed on 31-8-2001 whereas Sarubai had died on 23-4-2001.2. The petitioner filed the dispute against Sarubai even though he had received information on 2-7-2001 about her death. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for bringing the legal heirs of Sarubai on record. This application was rejected by the Co-operative Appellate Court.3. Mr. Kini, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the rejection of the application has led to an anomaly since the heirs of Sarubai have been allowed to be brought on record in Dispute No. 934 of 1997 in which Sarubai was arrayed as the opponent No. 2. The anomaly, if any, is clearly not objectionable in vi...

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Prakash R. Parab

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR549]; 2006(2)MhLj294

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner employee, by the present petition has challenged the Award Part 1, dated 28th May, 2002. By that award, the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding vide order dated 24-11-1994, holding that the enquiry against the workman was vitiated, and consequently giving an opportunity to the employer to prove the charge of misconduct at an independent enquiry before the Tribunal.2. A few facts may now be noted. The respondent-workman joined the services of the petitioner-company as an Engineering Helper on 11-3-1979. On 29-4-2002 the respondent was assigned to duties at Goa flight and Calcutta flight for pushing the baggage containers. On 10-5-1992 the respondent was arrested by the police, pursuant to the complaint received from one Mr. S. M. Jariwala a passenger on the flight operated by petitioner company, for committing theft of an amount of Rs. 25,0007- from his baggage. Pursuant to that a charge-sheet was served on the responde...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sesa Goa (India) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Bom)302

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue.2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction on account of investment allowance, by ignoring the fact that the assessee is engaged only in processing activity and not in production and manufacturing of any article or thing, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) ?II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee of Rs. 90,000 being fees paid to the RoC for increasing the authorised capital of the company for the purpose of issuing bonus shares, based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT : [1984]1...