Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC633

1. After hearing both sides for some on the applications for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs 8,14,09,771 and penalty of equal amount on M/s Smita Conductors Ltd and a penalty of Rs 1.50 crores on M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, we find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of, at this stage, as the issue in dispute stands settled by an earlier order of this Tribunal; hence, after waiver of pre deposits, we take up the appeals for hearing, with the consent of both sides.2. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 providing for exemption to all goods falling under Schedule of CETA 1985 from the whole of Excise duty leviable under Section 3 of the Act and the whole of the Additional Duty of Excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 when the goods are intended to be supplied to the United Nations or an international organization for their official use or supplied to the projects financed by ...

Shri Mahendra Singh Purohit Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC337

1. As per facts on record, the Custom Officers intercepted a number of packages being transported by Madras Mail on 09/07/2003 under various original receipts. The said bundles/packages were found to contain various electronic consumer goods and cigarettes along with wrist watches, etc. The same were seized by the officers on the reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled items.2. The appellants herein Shri Mahendra Singh Purohit, vide his letter dated 08/08/2003 claimed the ownership of some of the items like C.D.Systems, VCRs, VCDs, etc. totally valued at Rs. 6,65,000/- and in his statement recorded on 11/08/2003, he deposed that he was doing brokerage business in Chennai and was dealing in electronics goods, which he used to purchase from various passengers; that he had booked the goods claimed by him with the Railways and after making enquiry came to know that Custom Officers have seized the same. He also produced photo copies of duty paying documents in support of his claim t...

Shri K.P. Abdul Majeed, Shri K.P. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The officers of the D.R.I. intercepted one jeep on 06.05.1999, search of which resulted in recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 84 Lakhs. Driver of the said jeep, Shri Naushad Pulisheri Parambil, in his statement given to the officers deposed that the Indian currency was sale proceeds of smuggled gold biscuits, which were brought to Mumbai from Calicut for disposal, as per instructions of one Shri K.P. Abdul Mazeed. Statement of other two occupants of the jeep Shri Kiri and Shri Kasim were also recorded wherein they revealed that there was a special cavity on the roof of the jeep which was used for concealing gold biscuits which they have brought on many occasions under the instructions of Shri K.P. Abdul Mazeed. They further disclosed that during such trip at Mumbai, they were staying at Mahim Guest House. In respect of the present transaction, they submitted that on reaching Mumbai, keys of the vehicle was given to one contact person of Shri Mazeed who took the vehicle and brought the...

Shri Sai Bhagwati Co-op. Housing Society (Proposed) and anr. Vs. the S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR403; 2006(5)MhLj483

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. This petition is filed by a proposed housing society of over 100 slum dwellers who want to develop a slum area situated in Andheri/Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. Petitioner No. 2 is a slum developer whom they have chosen to develop this property. They are challenging the decision of the Secretary (Housing) dated 21st April 2005 whereby he has directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the proposal of Respondent No. 3 and to issue them the Letter of Intent to develop the concerned property. Respondent No. 3 is a developer appointed by Respondent No. 5 which is another proposed cooperative housing society and which has interest in developing the same parcel of land.3. The short facts leading to this petition are this wise that the concerned parcel of land belongs to the Municipal Corporation. Neither the 1st Petitioner society nor the 5th Respondent society or their respective builders have any rights whatsoever in this parcel of land. Their...

Popcorn Entertainment and anr. Vs. the City and Industrial Development ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR880; 2006(5)MhLj450

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By these two petitions the petitioners have challenged the action taken by the respondents the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'CIDCO'). The petitioners Popcorn Entertainment Corporation Limited in Writ Petition No. 9467 of 2005 and Platinum Entertainment in Writ Petition No. 9468 2005 were allotted plot of land by CIDCO for erecting entertainment complex in Navi Mumbai district. That was to be a commercial building to be erected by construction of multiplex complex and allied complimentary activities. The price fixed by CIDCO was paid by the petitioners and the petitioners were put in physical possession of the plot.2. By the impugned communication CIDCO has cancelled the entire transaction and claimed possession of the plot from the petitioners. Hence they have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the entire action and interim relief of injunction restraining CIDCO fro...

Chitrakala Fal Dessai Vs. Balu Maratha @ Mane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR602; 2006(6)MhLj427

Desai Ranjana, J.1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 25/98 pending on the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Canacona. By this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the Order dated 30th September, 2002. By the impugned order the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code is rejected.2. The plaintiff filed the instant suit on 24th September, 1997 inter alia for a direction that she is the owner of the suit property. In the said suit she filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying that documents mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said application which pertained to the suit property be allowed to be produced. It is the petitioner's case that the said documents are absolutely necessary for adjudication of the real controversy involved in the suit. According to the petitioner she had misplaced the documents and therefore she could not prod...

Estate Investment Company Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR610

1. Heard Mr. Setalwad, the learned Senior Counsel by M/s. Mehta & Girdharilal for petitioners, Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Associate Advocate General for the State, Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the interveners and Mr. Karandikar the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.2. Writ Petition No. 5118 of 1995 was disposed by us on 3/4/2006 by observing, inter alia, that the status of the petitioners over the suit land and the nature of the suit land could not be decided in a writ petition and the efficacious remedy for the same was to either approach the concerned revenue authorities or to institute a suit before the competent Court. On the issue of dealing with an application for N.A. permission during the intervening period and as per the scheme of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, we had noted down the undertaking of the Deputy Collector that the petitioners shall be noticed as and when the application for N.A. permission is received in resp...

Parksons Press Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STT46

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 61,262/- levied as Service Tax on the applicants herein on services received by them from "Goods Transport Operator" during the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 is allowed, as we find prima facie in the submission of the applicants that the provisions of Clause 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 under which they have been held liable to pay Service Tax does not empower issue of fresh show cause notice subsequent to 12-5-2000 (Notice in the present case was issued on 18-11-02) for recovery of Service Tax for the prior period, in the light of Larger Bench decision in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. as upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) : 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.).2. Pre-deposit is, therefore, waived and recovery stayed pending the appeal....

Aasu Exim Pvt. Ltd., Aasu Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC392

1.1. These appeals against the same order are being disposed by this common order.1.2. (a) Acting upon a specific information that goods in, transit to NEPAL have been deflected and thus such goods smuggled from Nepal were kept in two godowns located at CN-173, Budpur 8& 40/5,Khera Kalan, G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as godown No. 1 & 2 respectively and the Officers of DRI Zonal Unit Delhi searched the godowns on 8.5.2000 (b)(i) At godown No. 1 in charge of one Kailash Chandar as stated by one person Subash found there. It was found that. PVC coated cloth in rolls was being off loaded from a tuck No. HR-38F-1678. The driver of the said truck Shri Bilal Ahmed informed the Officers that he had brought the goods from Mumbai on behalf of one M/s. Aasu Textile Pvt. Ltd. and same were covered by Consignment Note No. 2004 dt.03.05.2000 of M/s. Surface Cargo Carriers Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Transporter) Another such truck No. HR-38A-9897 carrying similar ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Ganesh Dyeing and Printing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC622

1. Heard both sides. The order was reserved on the preliminary objection raised by the learned advocate to the effect that nowhere in the appeal filed by the applicant Commissioner it has been mentioned that the Commissioner has formed an opinion that the order passed by the lower appellate authority is not legal or proper. In this regard, he relies on the Apex Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills .We have not heard as yet either side on the merits of the case pending decision on the aforesaid preliminary objection.2. We find that the impugned appeal has been filed under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the lower appellate authority. The relevant Sub-section (2) of the said Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before its amendment in the year 2005, read as under: The Commissioner of Central Excise may, if he is of opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner of Central...