Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Pennar Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Issue in this appeal is the ex-cisability of Aluminium dross and its classification under heading 26.20 of CETA, 1985.2. The said Aluminium Dross arises during the course of the manufacture of ingots which the appellant assessee is engaged in.3. The Apex Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. , after examing the definitation & nature of Dross concluded - ...Dross and skimmings may contain some small percentage of metal but dross and skimmings are not in the same class as waste or scarp....Held that the same is not waste therefore dross not to be excisable.Following this settled position, the attempt of Revenue, in this case is classify Dross as "Ash & Resides other than from manufacture of Iron & Steel containing metals and metal components" under heading 26.20 of CETA, 1985 cannot be upheld. Dross is held to not excisable or classifiable as arrived. The order impugned is set aside & appeal allowed....

Microland Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC720

1. These are applications for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs. 4,88,85,399/-demanded from M/s Ultra Tek Devices now known as M/s Celtron Power India Pvt. Ltd. and another Rs. 4,24,90,068/- from M/s Celtron Power India Pvt. Ltd. in respect of seized goods provisionally released to them. Besides this penalties have been imposed to the extent of Rs. 1 Crore on M/s Ultra Tek Devices Ltd. Rs. 50 lakhs on Shri Manohurlal Tandon, Rs. 15 lakhs on Shri Pradeep Kar, Rs. 1 lakh on shri Ashok Radhakrislman, Rs. 15 Lakh on Shri Anand Sudarshan, Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Navin Kulkami, Rs. 50 lakhs on M/s Microland Ltd. Rs. 25 lakhs on Shri Venkatraman Raghavendran.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s Ultra Tek Devices Ltd. a part of Tandon Group of Companies had a unit in SEEPZ, Mumbai along with other units of Tandon Group. They filed an application dated 16.5.94 with the Office of the Development Commissioner at SEEPS seeking DTA sale entitlement against their export for the...

Kohinoor Proofing Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC411

1. The issue in this appeal is the classification of tarpaulin manufactured by the appellants herein - whether under Chapter Heading 52.06 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985 as claimed by the manufacturers, or under Chapter Heading 59.06 as contended by the Revenue.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the issue of classification had been agitated by the appellants before the Tribunal which, vide its order No. 961/99-D dated 16.9.1999, remanded the case to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for de novo consideration. In the present impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the test report of the goods stating clearly that the base cotton fabric is heavily impregnated and that the impregnation can be seen with the naked eye and thereafter applied Note 5(a) to Chapter 59 to hold that since the impregnation can be seen by the naked eye, the layer formation is visible, and therefo...

Shahrukh Khan Vs. Dy Cit, Spl. Rg. 21

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), C-V, Mumbai dated 28-8-2002 passed for assessment year 1993-94.2. The assessee has raised three substantial grounds of appeal. With ground No. 1 assessee has taken one sub-ground, which relates to denial of admission of additional evidence by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that this ground be taken as preliminary ground of appeal and if assessee succeed on this ground then the impugned order would be deserves to be set aside for re-adjudication.3. The brief facts of the case are that the learned Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 21,98,000 on account of unexplained cash credits available in the books of assessee. Dissatisfied with this addition assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and he filed additional evidences under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules in order to explain the...

Kirti M. Kothari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Collector of Customs

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR229; 2006(6)BomCR135; 2007(207)ELT496(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner herein is a disabled person suffering from Polio, whereby his left arm is affected. The year 1981 had been declared as 'The International Year for the Physically Handicapped Persons'. It was in keeping with such declaration, the Government of India introduced a policy under which the physically handicapped persons were permitted to import cars with appropriate modifications/designs which would be suitable for their use. Under that policy they were also not required to produce Customs Clearance Permit ('CCP' for short). The custom duty leviable was only 50% of the ad-valorem value. It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly he imported the vehicle but the respondents insisted on the CCP. It is, therefore, that the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition.3. The petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge (Mrs. Manohar, J., as she then was in this Court) on 11th Decemb...

Niranjan D. Woody Vs. the South Indian Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR144; 2006(5)BomCR587

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Petitioner owns a plot of land at Santacruz1 on which there is a building consisting of a ground floor, two storeys and two garages. The Petitioner has a residential flat admeasuring 2435 sq.ft. therein. Apart from the residential flat of the Petitioner, the building is in the occupation of eight tenants. Until the Petitioner and his family came to be dispossessed, the residential flat was occupied by the Petitioner, his wife and son. The property was held jointly by the Petitioner with his father. The Petitioner's father expired in September 2005, leaving behind his last will and testament, by which the right, title and interest is bequeathed to the Petitioner.3. On 20th July 2001, the Petitioner availed of an Over Draft Facility in the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs from...

Janhit Manch and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR958

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed that the-Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners appointed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act') be declared as ad-hoc or temporary appointees and that an impartial sub-committee be formed to assist the selection committee under the RTI Act, 2005 for scrutinising the applications / nominations received for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners and after shortlisting forward the names to the selection committee for personal interviews for the final selection for the said posts.2. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by the Parliament to provide for setting up the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to permit transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Inform...

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Mr. S.R. Mishra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR310; 2007(4)BomCR478; [2006(111)FLR556]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of counsel returnable forthwith. By consent of counsel and at their request taken up for final hearing.2. The respondent was employed as a Bus Driver in the BEST Undertaking on 15th February, 1992. On 30th May, 2000 he was assigned to drive Bus 5899 on Route 708 Ltd. between Bhayander and Dindoshi Depot. When the bus which was driven by the Respondent reached Kashimira, it dashed against a cyclist who was riding a bicycle with his wife as a pillion rider. As a result, the cyclist fell down and it was alleged that he was run over by the bus. The cyclist died on the spot and his wife received injuries. It is alleged that the respondent, despite the accident, did not stop the bus or report the accident to the police or to the Undertaking. Information about the accident was lodged by the wife of the cyclist and by members of the public to the police and an F.I.R. came to be lodged. The respondent and the conductor of the bus came to be chargesheeted ...

Shri Satishchandra R. Shetty, Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bom ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR714; 2007(1)BomCR215

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By an Agreement to Assign dated 1.7.1970 entered into between (1) Shri Manwani Dullabhdas Modi, (2) Bai Anand Laxmi J. Modi and (3) Chandrakant Chhabildas Mehta, as assignors and one Tarachand Govindram Manwani as Assignee, the assignors agreed to assign leasehold land being Plot No. 206 in Scheme No. 52 of Worli (Estate) with the building standing thereon. In July, 1970 there were 5 tenants in shops on the ground floor and four tenants in flats on the first floor. It has been averred in the petition that Tarachand Govindram Manwani became the Chief Promoter of a proposed Co-operative Housing Society. After the agreement dated 1.7.1970, the Chief Promoter entered into possession and constructed the second and third floors of the building on the plot and the construction was approved by the Corporation. Agreements to sell were entered into in respect of 12 flats that were constructed on the first and second floors of the building, with individual flat purchasers. ...

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR223; 2006(5)MhLj717

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Sohoni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, and Shri Ahirkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 3.2. Shri Sohoni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner-Company is questioning legality and propriety of the communication dated 16/18-4-1996 claiming interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the ground that the petitioner has defaulted to pay royalty on coal in accordance with Rule 64-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. It was contended that though validity of the said Rule was also challenged in the present petition, however, during pendency of the petition, the Apex Court declared the said Rule constitutionally valid and, therefore, challenge to validity of the said Rule no more survives.3. Learned Counsel Shri Sohoni submitted that though respondents under Rule 64-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 are entitled to impose interest at the rate ...