Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Dnyaneshwar Vs. Namdeo and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007ACJ2307

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal impugns the judgment and award passed by learned District Judge/Ex-Officio Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanded in M.A.C.P. No. 187 of 1997 dated 18.7.1999.2. The background facts of the present case were as follows:(a) The appellant was the claimant in M.A.C.P. No. 187 of 1997 filed in the court of learned District Judge/Ex-Officio Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanded against one Namdeo s/o Gangadhar Phulwalkar and National Insurance Co. Ltd., who were the respondents. M.A.C.P. No. 187 of 1997 was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988' for short). The amount of compensation, to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000, was claimed in Claim Petition No. 187 of 1997, towards compensation.(b) Applicant-petitioner in M.A.C.P. No. 187 of 1997 alleged that vehicular accident occurred on 13.11.1996. The petitioner was in the house of his maternal grandfather on the date of accident, i...

Acharya Jialal Vasant Sangeet Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Section 76 and Rs. 3,000/- under Section 77 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to obtain registration and to submit ST-3 returns, is allowed as the applicants have prima facie shown that they are not Mandap Keepers as per Section 65(67) of the Finance Act as they had only let out a hall belonging to them on long term basis and prima facie not given the hall for functions to earn income there from.2. We, therefore waive pre-deposit of the penalties and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

Metal Development Company Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC79

1. The applicants herein do not dispute liability to pay Service Tax as they have rendered services of Market Research Agency to M/s. Kalyani Carpenter Special Steels Ltd. However, they submit that the amount received by them from M/s. Kalyani Carpenter Special Steels Ltd. was only Rs. 4,50,000/- and Service Tax being payable at the rate of 5%, they would be liable to pay tax of Rs. 22,500/- and not Rs. 45,000/- as confirmed against them. They also pray for waiver of penalties of Rs. 500/- under Section 75, penalty of Rs. 45,000/- under Section 76 and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 45,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. On hearing both sides, we find that prima facie there is force in the contention of the applicants regarding liability to the Service Tax being to the extent of Rs. 22,500/- as seen from page 23 of the Paper Book where the receipt by them was Rs. 4,50,000/-. We, therefore, direct pre-deposit of Rs. 22,500/-(Rupees Twenty two Thousand Five...

Bayer India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC526

1. The appellants who are manufacturers of Agrochemicals Textile Chemicals etc. and dealers in such products, also manufacture fungicide under the brand name 'Dithane M-45' falling under CET 3808.10 by diluting 'Mancozeb Technical 85%' imported by them from M/s. Rohm & Haas Company, France (herein after referred to as R&H). They commenced manufacture of the above mentioned products from 1996. Prior to that period, M/s. Indofil Chemicals Ltd. were importing Mancozeb Technical 85% from R&H and manufacturing Fungicide in India under the brand name Dithane M-45. In November, 1995, the appellants entered into an agreement with R&H for import and distribution of Dithane M-45 in India and started importing Mancozeb T-85% from R&H since Feb. 1996 at the following prices: 2. Show cause notice dated 25.1.2001 was issued to the appellant' company proposing to recover alleged differential duty of Rs. 7,19,84,692/- under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (by...

Fabtech Engineers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune has confirmed short levy of Rs. 41,60,250/- together with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Section 11AC upon the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of LPG Tanker mounted on Trailer falling under CET Sub-heading 8716.00 on the ground that they were not including the value of 3 essential items viz.Running gear, landing gear and pressure plates for the purpose of payment of duty on the finished goods.2. We have heard both sides. We find that these 3 items above mentioned are parts of Trailer and not parts of Chassis for which the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 241/86-C.E. was claimed by the assessees. The benefit of the Notification is available to motor vehicles falling under Headings 87.02, 87.03, 87.04 or 87.17 and manufactured from Chassis on which duty has been paid. The exemption from payment of duty is to the extent equivalent to the duty of excis...

Bhatwadekar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has upheld the penalty imposed upon the applicants herein under Sections 76 and 77 on the ground of failure on their part to furnish the prescribed returns and to pay Service Tax as Consulting Engineers.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the lower Appellate Authority has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V. Shanmughavel v. CCE Chennai in which the High Court held that valuers of plant & machinery being professionally qualified engineers have to be regarded as Consulting Engineers and services rendered by them to be considered as Taxable service. The applicants herein provided services of surveyor, loss adjusters and valuers and therefore, prima facie the Appellate Authority has correctly relied upon the High Court's decision cited supra to hold that the applicants are liable to pay tax as Co...

Unison Clearing (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (General)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant are a CHA with Mumbai Customs House and their licence has been suspended vide an order dated 19-1-2006 by the Commissioner of Customs (General) New Custom House, Mumbai, on receipt of certain information received from Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, who had suspended the licence of the very same company at Customs House at Amritsar granted Collector of Customs, Amritsar. The ground for the suspension, as they appears from the order impugned before us, is an allegation of forgery of the signatures of the officers by the employees of the said CHA company during the course of clearance of imported goods under DEPB scheme, without mentioning when such imports were effected within the jurisdiction of the Amritsar Customs House.3. The appellants rely upon the certain case laws on the subject to the effect that no suspension be called for at the matter Customs for which alleged misuse by an another Customs House Agent, (this Tribunal decision in the case of Swen Agencies ...

Cosmo Films Ltd. and Janardan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC276

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 17,24,373/- under Section 11A together with interest under Section 11B, and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 upon the appellant company and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon its deputy general manager (commercial) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The demand has been confirmed by holding that in respect of clearances of BOPP films to their sister unit at Silvassa, the basis for payment of duty was the comparable price for similar goods cleared to independent buyers, in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, instead of cost construction method in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, as adopted by the assessees for determination of assessable value. The assessees do not dispute that the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) are applicable in the case of clearances to sister unit and their only submission ...

Ujagar Textile Industries (P) Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC578

2. This appeal is against the Order in Appeal No. RJB/355/M-II/2001 dated 15.05.2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai-II. The issue involved in this appeal is about applicability of judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Parekh Prints and Ors. v. Union of Indian to the case in Akilence Textiles Limited and others passed by the same High Court wherein the appellants are one of the writ petitioners.3. The appellants had a dispute relating to payment of Additional Duty of Excise under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 on the fabrics so processed and also raised the same issue and filed writ petion under the cause tile M/s.Parekh Prints and others- challenging the levy of additional duty of excise on the processed fabrics by the job worker. The have also obtained interim order dated 18.9.90 in which it was directed that the assesses to deposit 50% of the duty demanded by the excise department and for the balance 50% bank guarantee was dir...

Raichand C. JaIn Vs. Surendra Prasad

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006BomCR(Cri)109

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Shri Salvi appearing for respondent No. 1 waives notice. By consent heard finally.2. In these applications the questions arising for consideration are common, arguments are identical and therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgement.3. These criminal applications invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Sessions Court and the Metropolitan Magistrate taking a view that exoneration of the applicants in adjudication proceedings, would not be a bar for prosecuting them for offences punishable under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ('FERA' for short). In other words, although, in adjudication proceedings the issue of liability to pay duty/tax and dependent upon it imposition of penalty may also have been considered, but that would not permit quashing and/or closing of criminal prosecution for offences alleged under the same Enactment under which...