Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Rlc Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant is an 100% EOU. They were issued a Show cause notice dt.24-10-03 alleging that during the period June 2000 to March 2003 imported chemicals and heat shrinking tubes imported for the use in manufacture of export products i.e. accessories for cable joining kits, resulted in certain wastages amounting to 18113.120 Kgs. chemicals and 31541.485 Mts heat shrink tubes. This quantum of wastage was considered to be in excess of the norms provided and hence duties of customs were proposed to be recover don the inputs contained in such wastage which arose in excess of the norms. The Assistant Commissioner relied on Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dt. 30-6-97 as amended. The notice referred to condition Nos. 1 and 4 of this Notification read with Para 6-8(e) of the Export-Import Policy and Appendix 14L of the Handbook of Procedures.2. The Appellants case is that Export Import Policy 2002-2007 stated that wastage and scrap could be destroyed with the permission of the customs authorities...

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC597

1. The issue involved in these appeals is valuation of physician samples on which duty demands have been made as per the chart below. E/1305/2005 E/3060/2005 E/3059/2005Period 1.5.03 to 29.2.04 1.5.03 to 29.2.04 April 2003Duty Rs. 1,02,18,619 Rs. 24,51,532 Rs. 4,80,469Penalty Rs. 1,02,18,619 Rs. 2,00,000 Rs. 40,000Date of SCN 4.6.2004 29.4.2004 7.5.2004 2. Physician samples are packed separately and valued by the Appellants as provided under Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of the C.Ex Valuation Rules, 2000 i.e. 115% (110% w.e.f.) 6.8.2003 ) of the cost of production in terms of CBEC Circular dt. 1.7.02 and duty was discharged accordingly on such physician samples cleared. As per the notices issued it was alleged that the valuation as per circular dt. 1.7.02 was not correct and valuation was to be arrived under Rule 11 of the valuation Rules 2000. Since Rule 4 preceded Rule 8, valuation of such samples was required to be done under Rue 11 read with Rule 4 and also the spirit of Rule 8 was not...

Ruston Hornsby (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC82

1. The appellants herein who are manufacturers of IC engines and parts thereof and generating sets and parts thereof, availed deemed credit of duty paid on inputs such as aluminium alloy ingots (falling under Chapter Heading 76.01), waste and scrap of aluminium (falling under Chapter Heading 76.02), waste and scrap of copper/copper alloy unwrought (falling under Chapter Heading 74.02/74.03) and iron and steel products and steel sheets of thickness exceeding 5 mm and MS plates/ strips/ bars/ angles/ channels etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department sought to disallow the deemed credit on the ground that the inputs were clearly identifiable as being non-duty paid or wholly exempted from duty since the inputs were cleared under the benefit of exemption in terms of notifications 172/84 / 182/84 and 180/88. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 51,832/- being the credit availed on aluminium ingots (out of the total ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC248

1.1 The respondents imported a consignment of molybdenum concentrates claiming the same to be falling under Chapter 26 of the Customs Tariff.The goods have been described in the statement of facts as under: The goods in question are molybdenum ore "molybednite"(MoS2) which has been subjected to the process of concentrate and roasting and has as such become an oxide of molybdenum namely molybdic oxide...Goods attracted both basic customs duty as well as CVD (additional duty of customs) levied under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.There is no dispute on the basic customs duty leviable on the imported goods. The only dispute is with reference of levy of CVD. For determing the levy of CVD under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, it deemed manufacturer in India is to be considered and thereafter the rate of the Central Excise Duty leviable thereon determined. This position has been settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Industries...

Jayant Vasudeva Deshmukh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STR257

2. At the time of hearing stay application, it is quite felt expedient to dispose of the appeal itself as the issue involved in both is one and the same.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Jayant Vasudeva Deshmukh, 1^st Floor, Rahalkar Chambers, 431, Vakilwadi are engaged in Architect services having Service tax Registration to comply with the conditions prescribed in the Service Tax Rules, 1944 is provided in Service Tax network. It appears that the assessee had failed to pay Service Tax and to file return in time in form ST-3 for the period April, 2001 to September, 2002. Thereupon the Assistant Commissioner had issued two Show-Cause-Notices for the contravened the provisions of Section 68 & 70 of the Act for not paying the Service Tax and filing the returns in time and as to utilize the same should not be levied and also proposed penalty. The Notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner (S.T.), Central Excise & Customs, Nasik and confirm the ...

J.K. Synthetics Limited a Company WithIn the Meaning of Companies Act, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom8; 2006(5)BomCR410; 2006(6)MhLj101

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. By this Appeal, the Appellant first Defendant has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2004 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1211 of 2003 in Suit No. 4411 of 1997. The issue involved in this Appeal is regarding entitlement of the Appellant to reduction in the amount of fees/ commission charged by the Court Receiver as per the rates prescribed by Rule 591 of The Rules and Forms of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the Original Side in its several Jurisdiction Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'O.S. Rules').2. For the purposes of appreciating the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.3. The second Respondent filed a suit against the Appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 101.29 Crores and other reliefs which are more particularly set out in the plaint. By order dated 7th January, 1998, the Court Receiver, High Court was appointed as Recei...

The Archidiocese of Goa, Daman and Dui, Through Its Constituted Attorn ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR881

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petition is filed by the Archidiocese of Goa, Daman and Diu and the dispute pertains to certain lands situated in two villages of Daman. The properties including agricultural and non-agricultural lands of the villages Marwad and Belwada were taken over by the Administration of Daman and Diu in view of Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation 1962. The petitioner contended that the agricultural land was taken over without giving any compensation and the non-agricultural property was also taken over, even though it could not be taken over under the said Regulation of 1962. With these contentions, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 30/B of 1970 before the Panaji Bench of this Court. The writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 30.3.1983 wherein the direction was given to hold an enquiry for fixing compensation for taking over the lands. It was held that the land under the said Regulation, as amended in 1967, would mean agricultural l...

Kasturibai W/O Dadarao Wankhade Vs. Sheshrao Pandhari Zamre and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom350; 2006(5)BomCR638; 2006(44)MhLj330

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is Second Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the concurrent judgments, whereby the suit brought by her for partition and separate possession has been partly decreed. The trial Court has found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property of her father by way of inheritance but only on account of Will and, therefore, the trial Court has given her share as per the said Will Exh.-44. The appeal filed by the plaintiff, claiming share as heir and challenging the Will, has been dismissed by the appellate Court by maintaining the judgment and decree of trial Court.2. No substantial question of law has been framed while admitting the appeal on 4-8-1992.3. After hearing Advocate B.T. Patil for the appellant/plaintiff and Advocate C.A. Joshi, Advocate for respondents/ defendants, it has become clear that the only substantial question of law sought to be canvassed by the present appellant is; whether Will Exh.-44, used against her i...

Rajaram Bapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR537

Gokhale H.L., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner No. 1 herein is a Co-operative Sugar Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('MCS Act' for short). Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had applied for becoming members of this Society to the 2nd respondent-Regional Deputy Director (Sugar), Kolhapur in August 1995. On that application having been made, the Regional Deputy Director, by his letter dated 30th September, 1995, wrote to the 1st petitioner-Co-operative Sugar Society forwarding applications of 229 members to be made members as well as their demand drafts towards the membership. Earlier the Sugar Co-operative had returned those applications and the payments to the applicants. The letter dated 30th September, 1995 asked the Sugar Co-operative to explain as to why the persons concerned should not be made members of the 1st petitioner-Co-operative Sugar Society and as to why the necessary directions under Section 79 of the MCS Act shou...

Bhagwat Sheshrao Choudhary Vs. Chakradhar Tukaram Thakare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR896; 2006(6)MhLj204

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The original defendant has filed this Second Appeal challenging the reversing trial Court's judgment. The present respondent is the legal heir of original plaintiff Kisnabai. The original plaintiff has died during pendency of the Regular Civil Appeal and the present respondent has come on record in her place on the strength of Will (Exh.-18) executed by Kisnabai in his favour. The suit by Kisnabai was for partition and separate possession. The suit came to be dismissed but the trial Court granted her maintenance. The said order was challenged by her by filing Regular Civil Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Regular Civil Appeal No. 98/1985 and the appellate Court has allowed the appeal and held that the original plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit property. The suit property is land Survey No. 17/1 of Alampur.2. The case of plaintiff was that it is an agriculture land admeasuring 3 Acre 69 Gunthas having a well, electric mo...