Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Gtcl Mobile-com Technology Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR490; 2006(44)MhLj11

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner, which is a company, duly registered under the Companies Act, has challenged the order dated 14-11-2003 in O.A. No. 380 of 2000 pending on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad and order dated 1-12-2003 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 374 of 2003 by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. Facts necessary for adjudication of this petition, stated briefly, are as under:2. The respondent No. 1 Bank of Rajasthan, on 27-6-2000 filed O.A. No. 380/2000 before the DRT Jaipur for recovering a sum of Rs. 10.8 crores and odd with interest and costs. The DRT Jaipur, by its order dated 16-10-2000 held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said application and therefore, returned the application for presentation to proper forum, to the bank.3. The bank instead of preferring an appeal as provided by Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred' to as the...

Jsw Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai by his Order-in-original No. CAO No. 101/2005/CAC/CC/NRN dated 20.10.2005 rejected the request made by the exporter i.e. M/s. JSW Limited, Mumbai, (appellants herein), for conversion of subject shipping bills into DFRC/DEEC shipping bills. Hence appellants are in appeal. The appellants are exporters of various Steel products, such as CRGP/CR/HR Steel Coils/Sheet. The DGFT, vide notification No. 54(RE-03) dated 28.02.2004, DGFT temporarily suspended the DEPB rates for certain steel items falling under Chapter 61 of DEPB Schedule with effect from 27.03.2004. The revocation of suspension of these DEPB rates was effected vide. Public notice 71 (RE-03) dated 12.07.2004. The effect was that in between the period 27.03.2004 and 12.07.2004, the DEPB was not available to certain steel items falling under chapter 61 of DEPB. During this period of suspension, the appellants have approached the Custom House with a request that the Engineering Products w...

Sudarshan Texport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The assessee is in appeal aggrived by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A), Central Excise, Mumbai-II. Both appeals raised common issue i.e. denial of refund claim pertaining to the Cenvat credit on the inputs used in the final product which are cleared by exports, as such they are being disposed of by common order.3. The facts of the said case are that the assessee, M/s. Sudarshan Tex-port Pvt. Ltd., Powai, Mumbai, have exported Fabrics under Bond in terms, of Notification No. 53/2001-CE(NT) dated 29.06.2001 and filed the refund claims of the accumulated deemed credit for the period July, 2001 and August, 2001 amounting to Rs. 1,17,739.50 (Rupees One Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Nine & paise Fifty only)(covering Appeal No. E/3610/04) and accumulated credit for the month of September, 2001 amounting to Rs. 2,48, 118/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighteen only) (covering Appeal No.E/3611/04). Both these refund claims were reje...

Plascap Industries and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 3 6,421/- (Rupees thirty six thousand four hundred twenty one only) and personal penalty of identical amount.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Caps and Bottles of plastic falling under Chapter 39 and Snap Off Cutters (Paper Cutters) falling under Chapter 82. For computing aggregate value of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) for the purposes of small scale exemption, the appellant did not take into consideration the clearance value of paper cutters on the ground that they were wholly exempt.However, on realizing that there is no exemption to paper cutters, they changed the description of the said goods to Pencil Sharpener and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 6/98-CE, in order to remain within the exemption limit.3. After hearing both the sides we prima facie agree with the findings of the lower authorities that paper cutters and pencil sharpeners are ...

P.N. Writer and Co. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1.These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, Mumbai dated 11-3-2004 passed under Section 263 for both the assessment years i.e., 1999-2000 and 2000-01. These appeals are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this order for the sake of convenience.2. The only grievances in both the appeals is that Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 and the order passed is outside the scope and ambit of the said section.3. The original assessments were completed under Section 143(3) for these assessment years. Deduction under Section 80-O was claimed @ 50% of foreign exchange earned by the assessee without taking into account the expenditure incurred in India to earn such eligible income.However, the assessing officer allowed the deduction under Section 80-O on the net income computed after taking into consideration all the expenses incurred in order to earn ...

Adnan Bilal Mulla Vs. the State Through D.C.B., C.i.D.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006BomCR(Cri)581

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (henceforth, 'POTA' for short), challenging the order dated 18.1.2005, delivered by Special Judge under POTA, Mumbai, in bail application No. 14 of 2004, arising out of POTA Case No. 2 of 2003, by which learned Judge rejected bail plea of the appellant-accused.Although by virtue of section 1(6), POTA is deemed to have come into force on 24th day of October 2001 and was to remain in force for the period of three years from the date of its commencement, i.e. upto 23.10.2004, in view of clause (b) to said sub-section (6) of Section 1, which reads;1(6) ...but its expiry under the operation of this sub-section shall not affect:-(a) ...(b) any right, privilege, application or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under this Act, or....,learned APP has not challenged maintainability of the appeal under Section 34 of the POTA. This is because, the appellant-accused was arrested while the Act was...

Santa Monica Convent Alias Convento De Santa Monica Vs. Anant Vithal K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR399; 2006(2)BomCR765

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. The following substantial question of law arise for consideration in the matter: 'When a suit is decreed ex parte solely on the ground that the affidavit evidence of the plaintiff had gone unchallenged and without analysing such evidence, whether the Appellate Court, in the appeal arising from such a decree, should while setting aside the same, remand the matter to the trial Court or proceed to decide the same finally ?2. The judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is sought to be challenged on the ground that the lower Appellate Court having found that the trial Court had decreed the suit solely on the basis of the affidavit evidence filed by the plaintiff, without even analysing such evidence in any manner and therefore being liable to be set aside, it could not have proceeded to consider the matter on merits but ought to have remanded the matter to the trial Court for being disposed of in accordance...

Noble Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. As per facts on records, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.P. Medicines classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was availing the facility of payment of duty on monthly basis in terms of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, During the period August, November and December, 2001, the appellants defaulted on payment of duty on due date and, as such, Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 10-2-2002 withdrew the said facility as per Rule 8 and directed the appellants to pay duly on consignment basis through PLA for a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.2. In terms of the above order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the appellants cleared the goods by paying duty on consignment basis.However, instead of debiting the same through account current, they made the payment through Cenvat account. Accordingly, they were issued two show cause notices dated 16-4-2003 and 9-7-2003 proposing confirmat...

Ccex Vs. Hilden Packaging Machines Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC220

1. Both sides agree that the issues in respect of all these appeals are similar and hence these appeals have been heard together by us.2. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR states that the impugned goods in respect of all these appeals are tailor made and hence there were no prices of comparable goods. He further states that in all these cases, advances received from the customers were used as capital and interest on the same was not refunded back to the customers. He cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi v.Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and draws our attention to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: A conspectus of decisions show that inclusion of notional interest in the assessable value or wholesale price will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, according to the adjudicating authority, the evidence indicated that the main object behind receiving advance from the customers was not security but collection of capital. I...

Arcadia Shipping Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are agents of M/s. Valentine Maritime (Gulf) LLC, Abu Dhabi (UAE), who had imported barge REGINa-250 in India and M/s.Gujarat Shipping Services, Jamnagar worked as sub-agents for the barge.The said barge was brought to India at Sikka Port on contract with a contract of M/s. Petroleums Ltd. for construction of Oil Jetty, laying Pipelines in sea bed and fixing of Single Buoy Moorings at the Port of Sikka. The barge was brought with Diving Equipments welded onto the barge at Abu Dhabi (UAE), for the project work. The welding was necessary for diving operation to be conducted and was done in December 1998 at Abu Dhabi prior to the import of the barge, with the said equipment, at Sikka Port in India on 27-12-1998. Duty exemption was claimed by classifying the barge under Heading 8901.90 and Notification 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999 along with diving equipment so welded on to the barge. The barge was granted exemption and the barge was working at Sikka Port for eight months...