Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Modella Woollens Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR276; [2007]139CompCas663(Bom)

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the above Company Application. By the order dated 13th April 1995 the learned Single Judge was pleased to make the company application absolute in terms of prayer clauses3 (a), (b) and (c). The learned Judge was also pleased to direct the Official Liquidator to make a report within eight weeks from the date of his order and thereafter the company application was to be placed on board for considering prayer clauses (d) and (e) thereof. 2. The company application was moved by Respondent no. 3 before us which is the original Applicant. The company application was directed against the Official Liquidator of M/s.Modella Textiles Industries Private Limited who was impleaded as Respondent no. 1 and the Appellant before us was impleaded as respondent no. 2 to the same. 3. By the company application the original applicant sought a declaration ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Ismile Abdul Gafur Patel Since Deceased Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj323

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the reference Court, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The First Appeal No. 870 of 1991 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra whereas the First Appeal No. 817 of 1991 has been filed by the claimants.3. The claimants' land bearing Survey Nos. 40, 44/1, 39/1, 37/4C, 7/2/7/A, 37/1/A, 36/8, 37/40/68/8, 37/18 and 36/7 situated in village Taloja, Taluka Panvel, District of Thane, were sought to be acquired by a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and published in Government Gazette on 4th February, 1970. The award in exercise of powers under section 11 of the said Act was declared on 6th December 1985 thereby awarding compensation for the land of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 37- and Rs. 4/- per sq.metre. Being; dissatisfied, the claimants preferred reference applicatio...

Kesha Appliances (P.) Ltd. Vs. Royal Holdings Services Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR1; [2008]144CompCas561(Bom); [2007]79SCL16(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26-9-2005, refusing to grant ad-interim relief in view of the order passed in Notice of Motion No. 2260 of 2005. That Motion has also been taken out by the plaintiff in the same suit. The learned Counsel has raised various Contentions before us and has argued that the allotment of the equity shares in favour of Defendant No. 7 is illegal, null and void. For that purpose the learned Counsel has placed reliance on Regulation No. 3(c)(ii) of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulation, 1997. It has been pointed out that transfer of shares contrary to the said Regulation is a nullity at law. Reliance for that purpose has been placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. Kishore R. Chhabria [2002] 109 Comp. Cas. 18 : 34 SCL 1. It is pointed out that the judgment of the learned...

Lkp Merchant Financing Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT68Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide Order no. A-1687/WZB/2004/C-I dated 25.11.2004, this Bench had allowed the applicants appeal, setting aside the order of confiscation of the Indian currency belonging to the applicant, consequent to the said order, the Indian currency was required to be returned to the applicants. Pursuant to this order, the applicant wrote letters to the Special Director of Enforcement, with copies addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and Superintendent (Preventive) requesting for release of the confiscated amount of Rs.61,17,100 together with interest till the date of payment. The august authorities, who are entrusted with the function of implementing the orders of this Tribunal, have not even cared to reply to this request made in writing and orally and the currency has not been released causing this application before CESTAT.2. On 13.9.2005, the Ld. SDR sought time to obtain a report, as regards the implementation of this Tribunal's order and the matter was posted to...

Harsh Silk Mills and Shri Hemant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Two appeals have been filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4th June, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Surat.3. The first applicant is M/s. Harish Silk Mills and second applicant is the partner of this unit, Shri Hemant Mansukhlal Chauhan. The issue involved in the appeals is that whether the quantity of man made fabrics (processed) admeasuring 40,133.25 l. mtrs. valued at Rs. 6,01,999 (Rupees Six Lakhs One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine only) was cleared illicitly by the appellants? There was a preventive check by surprise by the officers of central excise on 27th August, 1997.During the physical verification of grey, semi-processed and finished MMF lying in various sections of the mills with the central excise records, it was noticed that the fabrics of lot Nos. 445, 554, 555 and 556 were found not available and they were shown as pending in the records. On recording panchnama and the statements of the concerned persons, includin...

Arul Mariamman Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT528Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant claimed refund of Rs. 13,81,500/- on the ground that he paid excise duty on the generators, which were exempted from payment of duty when used as parts of wind mills. Under Notification No.205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-88 parts of wind mills are exempt from payment of duty. It is the appellants' contention that the manufacturer of the generator had wrongly paid the duty on the generators which are being now used as part of wind mills and he being the recipient of the goods is entitled to claim refund of duty erroneously paid. The claim was rejected by the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority. Hence this appeal.2. None appeared for the appellant heard the Id. DR and perused the records.3. We have observed that the claim for refund of duty is made by the buyer of excisable goods manufactured by someone on which duty has been paid. The appellant's contention that the manufacturer had wrongly paid the duty is not sustainab...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indo Plast Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner (Appeal) in his impugned order has allowed interest on the refund claim filed by the assessee under Section 11BB distinguishing the ratio held in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v.Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana, reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 48 (S.C.), wherein it is held that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the assessee under court's order to secure the revenue does not amount to payment of excise duty. Court case ultimately decided in favour of the assessee, but the Bank Guarantee already enclosed by the Revenue. In the said circumstances, it is held that provision to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable for refunding the same. The contention of the Department is that Section 11B does not apply, Section 11BB also cannot be made applicable for payment of interest. Furthermore, it is the submission that in the instant case also, the Bank Guarantee was furnished as security for payment of excise duty and ultimately it was re...

Tata Hydro-electric Power Supply Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A very short point is involved in the present appeal. The appellants who are recipients of various parts of Fly Ash Handling System, filed a refund claim on the ground that parts of the Pollution Control Equipment, attract concessional rate of duty of 5% in terms of Notification No. 78/90-C.E., dt. 20-3-90 as amended. The said refund claim was denied by the authorities below on the ground that Notification in question grants concessional rate of duty only in respect of complete pollution control equipment/system and the same is not applicable to the parts.2. Shri R.J. Parekh. ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant draws our attention to the Boards Circular No. 35/11/94 dt. 7-9-94 laying down that even when the equipment is cleared in CKD condition or SKD condition from the factory of manufacturer, the various parts would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification provided that they form part of a complete pollution control equipment/system and evidence is also produced for su...

ExfIn Shipping (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The case against the appellant herein, a CHA, holding CHA licence under Regulation 10 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984 (CHALR), commenced on a complaint from one M/s Banco Products (India) Pvt. Ltd, Baroda that their consignment and bill of entry dated 10/05/99 had been withheld and they were being charged heavily by one M/s Shark Shipping Agency by using the licence of the appellant herein with the consent of Shri Amber Mufti, Power of Attorney holder of the CHA. Upon preliminary investigation, the CIU concluded that the allegation of M/s Banco Products (India) Pvt Ltd appeared to be true and accordingly an enquiry was initiated against CHA under Regulation 21(2) CHALR, 1984 by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs as Inquiry Officer. (i). that CHA allowed use of his licence by unauthorized person for monetary consideration resulting in violation of Regulation 13 of CHALR, 1984 wherein it is specified that every licence granted or renewed under these regulations...

C.C. and C.E., Vs. Shri Valsad Sahakari Khand Udyog

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The Sugar Industries Federation, filed a case against the Ministry of Food for increase in the levy price during the period from 1974-75 to 1979-80. The Apex Court's judgment came in favour of the federation in the year 1993. Accordingly the Ministry of Food distributed the amount calculated as per the differential amount of levy price of the sugar during the said period and distributed the same in the year 1996-97 (Dec. 1996). The Revenues contention is that the assessee were required to pay Central Excise duty on the differential price received by them from the Ministry of Food. The assessees did not do so. They also failed to inform the department that they received an amount of Rs. 30,99,425/-. From the said Ministry.2. A show cause notice dated 23-3-98 was issued to them for recovery of Rs. 4,16,209/- calculated on the differential amount the assessee received from the Ministry of Food, invoking extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee suppressed facts of rec...