Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

S.S. Clearing and Forwarding Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the miscellaneous application is for implementation of Tribunal's order No. A/134/WZB/05/C-I (CSTB) dated 23/08/2005, vide which the impugned order of the Commissioner ordering for cancel of the applicant's CHA licence was set aside. The applicant's contention is that though a period of around six months has passed, his licence has not been restored by the revenue.2. The matter came up on board a number of occasions when the revenue was directed to get a report from the Commissioner as regards implementation of the said order. Ld. SDR Shri P.K. Katiyar, appearing for the revenue on 24/02/2006 informed the Bench that against the said order of the Tribunal, reference application has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. However, he fairly agrees that the said order of the Tribunal has not been stayed. Accordingly, time was given to the revenue to either procure the stay order or to implement the Tribunal's order immediately after expiry of one week.3. When...

Boisur Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC151

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has upheld duty demand of Rs. 4,60,468/- on the products in dispute which are textile auxiliary chemicals, by disallowing the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 10% in terns of notification 12/94-CE as amended by notification 14/95 dated 16.3.1995, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants herein.3. The assessees do not dispute that the products in question are not entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under the notification. In other words, they accept that their products are textile auxiliary chemicals and not lubricating preparations falling under Chapter Heading 34 03 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985 which alone were entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per serial No. 5 of the table to the notification. However, they contest the demand on the ground that it is barred by limitation, as show cause notice dated 29.9.1998 issued to them proposes recov...

Geeta Prints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC206

1. The Appellants are called absent, despite service of notice. Heard the ld. DR. In this appeal, the appellants are disputing the adjustments of Rs. 2,63,000/- towards dues of the same appellants in other case. Section 11 of the Central Excise Act empowers the department to adjust the amount payable to the assessee towards any dues of the department; therefore I find no substance on this point.The second ground urged is that interest amount on the unutilized credit. The department's contention is that there is no provision in the Act or rules for payment of interest on the unutilized deemed credit. Therefore I find no merits in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed for default and as well as on the merits....

Greaves Chitram Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Sr-vii, Madras

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)9SOT143(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1989-90. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-VII at Madras and arises out of the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.We heard Mrs. Aarti Vissanji, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Shri D.Z. Patel, the learned Departmental Representative appearing for the revenue.The first ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. This ground is narrated in detail by the assessee in three paragraphs under main ground "A." We considered this issue in the light of the discussion available in the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the assessing officer has rightly issued notice under section 148 and reopened the assessment under section 147 and, therefore, the ground raised by the assessee against reop...

Shri Ashok Dadu Mangale Vs. Shri A.N. Roy and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2219

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 read with Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution brings in question the order of detention dated 3/3/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (the Act for short). The said order has been claimed to have been passed with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to further arrest his activities of a 'slumlord' as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act.2. The petitioner is a resident of Mumbai and at the relevant time was residing at Trimurti Seva Sangh, Maharashtra Nagar, Mankhurd, a suburb of Mumbai along with his family members. Initially L.A.C. No. 15/2005 came to be registered against the petitioner and others for an offence punishable under Section 3Z2(6) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improv...

Shri Satyawan Pagi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2181

N.A. Britto, J.1. These appeals are filed by the accused who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ('Act' for short), by Judgment/Order dated 07-07-2004 of the Special Judge, Mapusa, Goa. The said accused were prosecuted after a complaint was filed by Shri Vaz, Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise/P.W. 4, with the allegation that on 23-02-2001, at about 18.30 hours, both of them while travelling on a motorcycle from Margao towards Panjim, were found in possession of 8.5 kgs hashish valued at about Rs. 20,00,000. In the course of the trial, the Complainant examined himself/P.W.4 and five more witnesses.2. The case of the accused was that they were falsely implicated. As per A1/Satyawan Pagi, in his statement separately filed after recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, A1/ Satyawan Pagi, was in the precincts of the Margao bus stand, when some persons grabbed ...

i.P.C.A. Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(199)ELT409(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In the above petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the common adjudicating order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 8th July, 1998 with regard to two Bills of Entries dated 23-9-1994 and 23-12-1994. The above two petitions have been filed challenging the aforesaid common order. The facts and circumstances of both the petitions as well as the products involved in, both the petitions are identical and the impugned order which is challenged in both the petitions is the common order dated 8th July, 1998, and in view thereof, we are disposing of both the Petitions by this common judgment and order.2. The Petitioners had imported by air consignment of Ostomy product from the United States Surgical Corporation for the following categories, (i) TA premium instrument/disposable loading units, (ii) EEA instruments and disposable loading units, (iii) GIA instruments and disposable loading units and (iv) Stapleoscopy products. It is the contention of Mr. Ghandy...

Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nigam A. Mannan Beskar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR217

Karnik D.G., J.1. The question of law that arises in this writ petition is : Whether Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in relation to its application in the State of Maharashtra as introduced therein by the Code of Civil Procedure Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977 Maharashtra Act No. LXV of 1977) stands repealed by Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Central Act No. 46 of 1999) and/or by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Central Act No. 22 of 2002.)2. I have heard Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 985 of 2006 and Mr. S.S. Dani, Advocate for the respondents in Writ Petition No. 730 of 2006 also appeared and requested to be heard as according to them the question of law which is stated in para 1 above also arises in their writ petitions and any decision thereon was likely to affect their petitions also. Their request to be hear...

In Re: Reunion Electrical Mfrs. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]70SCL52(Bom)

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding-up of the respondent-company.2. According to the petitioner, the company is indebted to her in the sum of Rs. 13,19,833.48 together with interest thereon. The petitioner carries on business as the sole proprietor in the firm name and style of M/s. Kandhan Electricals & Engineers. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to purchase orders placed by the company she supplied goods on the terms and conditions contained in 58 invoices, the details whereof are tabulated in paragraph 8 of the petition. The invoices were issued during the period 9-4-2001 to 3-11-2001.3. The only defence is that the claims are barred by limitation as the petition was filed on 9-8-2005.4. (a) By its letter dated 5-11 -2001 the company acknowledged its liability in the sum of Rs. 6,61,540.27. By a letter dated 22-11-2001 the company assured the petitioner that it would make payment at the earliest and expre...

Umesh Rout and ors. Vs. Phil Corporation Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR713

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners. None present for the respondent.2. By Order dated 13th October, 2005 respondent was directed to show cause as to why the petition should not be admitted and disposed of at the motion hearing stage itself. Since none of the defendants have appeared inspite of service of notice, it is apparent that they are not interested in contesting the proceedings. The only grievance which is sought to be made in the petition is that the trial Court inspite of cause having been shown for delay in filing the written statement, the application for condonation of delay has been rejected solely on the ground that the earlier order dated 31st March, 2005 refusing to extend time for filing written statement by some of the defendants was not challenged.3. Perusal of the impugned order disclose that the trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement solely on the ground that on 31st March,...