Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Mohan Dattatraya Dalal Vs. Chief Officer, Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR91

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None present for the respondent No. 3, though served.2. By the present Petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent No. 1 for compliance of their obligation under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and particularly in relation to the construction stated to have been illegally carried out by the respondent No. 3 in Plot No. 6 in Revenue Colony, Shirur (Ghodnadi), Taluka Shirur, Dist: Pune, and further to proceed with the matter arising out of the notice issued by the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 3 on 16-6-1999.3. At the time of admission and grant of interim relief in the Petition, this Court had directed the respondent No. 1 to proceed further in terms of the notice dated 16-6-1999 issued to the respondent No. 3, with a further direction to the respondent No. 3 to stop user of the unauthorised construction.4. The case of the petitio...

Minal Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(207)ELT57(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard Ms. Balani in support of petitioners. Mr. Jetly appears for respondents. Petition has been filed to challenge the Order-in-Appeal dated 20th January, 2006 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. That order had recorded that the petitioner had not deposited 10% of the penalty which was required to be given as pre-deposit and, therefore, the appeal was rejected.2. After this petition was filed, the petitioners have deposited that 10% amount and Ms. Balani has tendered a photocopy of the challans regarding deposit of Rs. 6,50,000/- with the Central Bank of India being 10% deposit of the penalty of Rs. 65,00,000/- and meant towards account No. 1453, Foreign Trade & Export Promotion. In view thereof, it is clear that the order of pre-deposit has been complied with.3. We, therefore, set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 20th January, 2006 dismissing the appeal for non deposit. Appeal stands restored to the file of the Director General of Foreign Trade who will...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mansi Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides in this appeal filed by the Revenue. The respondents are manufacturers of self adhesive BOPP film. The product consists of two layers, one release paper and the other BOPP film made from the plastic material. The lower authorities have classified it under chapter heading 48.14 on the ground that it is paper reinforced plastic sheets and paper predominates. The Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that the product is declared as "Gummed or adhesive paper in rolls" and in their commercial invoices the assessees have claimed the product as "Gummed paper Rolls (B)". "B" stands for BOPP film is an admitted fact. The respondents are fully aware that they are clearing BOPP film by misdeclaring it as gummed paper rolls.Therefore, since the paper is used in the nature of packing material film is more appropriately pleaded to be classified under heading 39.19 of CETA.3. After considering the rival classification, we find that the Revenue has a good case on merits of c...

Kainya and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has confirmed a differential duty demand of Rs. 38,21,696/- together with interest in terms of Section 28 read with Section 28AB of the Customs Act by rejection of declared value of Rs. 8,36,305.20 in respect of consignments of ferrous and non-ferrous furniture parts and fittings for doors and windows such as multipurpose racks, drawers pull-outs etc. falling under Chapter Headings 73, 82, 83, 85 and 94 of the table to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, imported by the appellants herein, and re-determining the assessable value at Rs. 68,62,636.68, ordered confiscation of seized goods under Section 111(m) with redemption fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation as per Section 125 and imposed penalty of amount equal to the differential duty confirmed on the importer company and Rs. 5,00,000/- upon its director.3. The case of the Revenue that the imported goods were undervalued is based upon export declarations purported to have be...

Hindustan Rubbers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC553

1. A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The dispute relates to the age of imported, used and second-hand conveyor belts curing line. The clearance of the said goods was sought by the appellants in terms of para 5.3 of Exim Policy read with para 5.4 of ITC hand-book on the basis that the goods were less than ten years old.in support of their contention that the age of the machine in question is less than 10 years and the same is of 1992 make, the appellants produced the supplier's invoice as also an independent Chartered Engineer's certificate.2. As against the above, the Commissioner has relied upon the examination report given by the machinery experts of the department for holding that the machine was more than 10 years old and in fact was manufactured in the year 1963. The above report refers to the fact that tally plate fixed on the motor was replaced with a new plate engraved with the year of manufacture as 1992, whereas the original plate underneath shown the yea...

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All these appeals are arising on the common Order-in-Original of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Certain vessels, barges, self-propelled tugs and consumable stores onboard were imported. They were chargeable to duty as follows: (i) old and used Barges shown in the annexure to the impugned order at Sr. No (1) LJB - 2 (3) GPM 240 (5) GAC-67 (7) Britoil 6 (8) Britoil - 5 (total 5 Nos. with parts and accessories carry 'Nil' rate of duty as 0per CTH No. 8901 read with exemption Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2003 Ser No 352. (ii) Old and used Tugs shown in the annexure to the impugned order at Sr. No. (1) Sea Bulk Duke (2) Sea Bulk Hairier (3) M.V. Ronja Tug (5) M.V. Linda (6) M.V. Sea Icon - Supply Vessel (7) M.V. Britoil 29 (8) M.V. Britoil - 8 (total 6 Nos. of Tugs and 1 Supply vessel); and Self-propelled barges shown at Sr. No. (2) HD 1000 and (4) HD 60 (2 Nos.) - all with parts and accessories any 5% rate of duty as p...

Russi S. Khambatta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC426

1. Heard both sides. The appellants had paid excess Service Tax (of Rs. 22,964.40 on 14-10-1994 and they have applied for refund on plain paper on 15-12-1994 as they were unaware of the Rules that Form R is to be used for applying for such refund. Subsequently they have filed the Refund claim on Form R on 18-5-1995 which has been rejected by the lower appellate authority as time barred.2. Considering the facts that Service Tax provision was newly introduced in the year 1994 and the appellants were unaware of the kind of form to be used for claim of refund and also the fact that they have filed the claim for refund within two months of making excess payment, I am of the view that the refund claim is not time barred. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to consider the refund on merit....

Cosmo Remedies Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC66

1. I have perused the order passed by Member (Technical) Shri S.S.Sekhon and Member (Judicial) Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and the difference of opinion referred to me.2. The above orders have already narrated the facts and discussed catena of decisions on the points at length and therefore I do not feel the necessity of repeating the same.3. The basic issue which needs to be decided is whether the job workers in the present case can be considered to be independent manufacturers or not based on the fact as to whether they are working under the supervision and control of the loan licensee or they are manufacturers in their own right.4. The learned advocate Shri Barucha and Shri M.P. Baxi on behalf of the appellants submitted that a great reliance has been placed by Member (Technical) on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd and therefore it would be useful to look into the ratio of this decision which reads as under. It has been held that loan licen...

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC49

1. The appellants in this case have imported parts and accessories of mobile phones which were classified by them under Chapter Heading 852990.90 and claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 which exempts parts, components and accessories of mobile handsets including cellular phones falling under Ch. Heading 852990.90 or any other chapter from duty if the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. These parts were imported under two different bill of entries but on examination it was found that when items covered under both bill of entries are combined together they form 12000 pcs. complete mobile phones in semi knocked down condition. It further came to notice that the purchase order placed by the appellants with the supplier was for mobile phones in SKD condition and not individual parts. In terms of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpre...

Yadav Ganpat Bhamare Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR114; 2006(6)MhLj339

Ranjana Desai, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to sanction and reimburse medical expenditure bills to the tune of Rs. 1,53,000/-incurred by the petitioner for undergoing Angiography on 23/12/97 and By-pass surgery operation on 31/12/97 in Poona Medical Foundations, Ruby Hall Clinic. 2. It is necessary to give a gist of the facts as stated in the petition. The petitioner had obtained degree in B.Sc. (Agri.) and B. Ed. He was appointed as Asstt. Teacher with effect from 12/6/72 in K. B. High School Chinchwad, Taluka Peth, District Nashik. He was transferred as Headmaster in Post Basic Ashram School (Secondary) Chinchwad, Taluka Peth by order dated 15/7/72. According to the petitioner the said school is receiving grant of the 1st respondent State of Maharashtra. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he discharged his duties as Headmaster in Chinchwad school upto 1979 and thereafter ...