Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-07-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The above-mentioned Stay Applications are filed seeking waiver of predeposit of penalty shown against each of the Applicants in the Table mentioned below:- Applicant Nos. Name of Applicants Status Penalties imposed(Rs.) 1-2) Sh.Sunil Ghosh Owner of Goods 10,00,000/- 3-4) Sh.Sanjoy Goyel Associate of Sh.Sunil Ghosh 10,00,000/- 5-6) Sh.Satya Sarkar Claimant of 14.44 MT of Goods 10,00,000/- 7-8) Sh.Bijay Kumar Gupta Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 9-10) Smt.Seema Agarwal Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 11-12) Sh.Uday Singh Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 13-14) Sh. Shankar Saha Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 15-16) Smt.Renuka Hamal Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 17-18) Sh. Sajal Saha Driver of Vehicle 20,000/- 19-20) Sh.Swapan Dey Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 21-22) Sh.Bhola Ghosh Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 23-24) Sh.Sukumar Dutta Owner of Vehicle 50,000/- 2.1.The Applicants, namely, S/Shri Sunil Ghosh, Sanjoy Goyel, Satya Sarkar have been penalized for their active involv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-19-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.603 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VAMSHI RUBBER LTD.Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, BEHALA CHARGE & ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 19th August, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Piyal Gupta, Adv.For Respondents : Mr.P.Dudharia, Adv.Inter-state sale is involved in this case. The petitioner is the seller to a buyer outside West Bengal. For non-production of C form, adjudication, appellate and revisional orders have been passed against them, as stated in the prayer portion of the writ petition. The writ petitioners case now is that they have been able to collect further C forMs.If those C forms are allowed to be produced by them before the Sales Tax authorities, it is expected that favourable orders for the petitioner would be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cites an un-reported decision of Harish Tandon, J. made on 29th January, 2014 in W.P.No.984 of 2013 [...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE W.P.No.787 of 2014 Sr.JAWAHAR SINGH Versus THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.With W.P.No.788 of 2014 Sr.JAWAHAR SINGH Versus THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE For the petitioner : Mr.Debajyoti Basu, Adv.Mr.Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Adv.For the respondents: Mr.Basudeb Mukherjee, Adv.Heard on: 21st August, 2014. Judgment on: 25th August, 2014. INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J. : A common order is being passed in respect of both the writ applications as noted in the previous order dated 21st August, 2014 in W.P.No.788 of 2013. The present petitioner who is the defaulting borrower has prayed for writ of mandamus to cancel the demand notices, possession notices and also to rescind the proposed e-auction sale notice as appeared in the newspapeRs.The subject matter of writ petition No.787 of 2014 is the ground floor along with the car parking space of a multistoried building and in W.P.No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-03-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:The Honble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.No.914 of 2014 MANGALAM FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.versus STATE BANK OF INDIA For the Plaintiff : Mr.Satarup Banerjee For the Defendant No.1 : Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sreyea Basu Mallick Heard On : 22.08.2014, 29.08.2014, 29.10.14, 05.11.2014, 17.11.2014. Judgment On : 3rd December, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- This application is at the instance of the defendant Bank for rejection and or dismissal of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act).The plaintiff has instituted the suit on 18th December, 2013 praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the classification of the account of the plaintiff borrower in the cash credit account maintained with the bank as non-performing asset is bad and all meas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-24-2014
ORDER SHEET GA NO.5 OF2014WITH CS NO.457 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MANGLAM FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 24th March, 2014. Mr.S.N. Mitra, senior advocate, Mr.A.Mukherjee, Mr.S.Banerjee, Ms.S.Sinhaappear. Mr.K.BhattacharyaappeaRs.The Court : Mr.S.N.Mitra, learned senior advocate cited Standard Chartered Bank vs.V.Noble Kumar And Others with Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2013 Senior Manager, State Bank of India And Another vs.R.Shiva Subramaniyan And Another; reported in [2013].9 SCC620 He relied on paragraph 28, which is inserted below. It can be noticed from the language of the proviso to Section 13[3-A].and the language of section 17 that an appeal under Section 17 is available to the borrower only after losing possession of the secured asset. The employment of the words aggrieved by taken by the secured creditor [emphasis supplied].in Section 17[1].clear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.353 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.MERCURY EXPORTERS AND MANUFACTURING PVT.LTD.& ANR Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 6th May, 2014 Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Chanchal Kumar Dutt, Advocate Mr.Provat Sil, Advocate ..for the petitioners Mr.Joy Saha, Advocate with Mr.Victor Dutta, Advocate ..for the respondents The challenge in this writ petition is to a notice dated 22nd February, 2010 issued by Punjab National Bank. Although the said notice was issued in purported exercise of power conferred by Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act).the bank did not take possession of the secured asset; instead, by the said notice it conveyed its decision of taking possession of the secured asset if the petitioners failed to deliver possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-09-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.6 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BANWARILAL SUTODIYA & ORS.Versus TIVOLI PARK APARTMENTS PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 9th June, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Sanjib Kr. Mal, Adv.Mr.Atanu Raichaudhuri, Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.Ms.Radhika Singh, Adv.Mr.Soumabho Ghosh, Adv.Ms.S.Nandy, Adv.The Court: The Senior Master appears to have passed a peremptory direction for disclosure of documents. Although the defendant no.1 has complied with the said direction but the plaintiff has failed to disclose the documents following which by an order dated 11th march, 2014 the learned Senior Master has declined to extend the time. In view of the peremptory nature of the order passed by him after he was permitted to do so by this Court in terms of the order dated 14th February, 2014, the plaintiff had conspicuously remain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-09-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.122 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRABHU DAYAL SUTODIYA Versus SHRI RAM TEA COMPANY(P) LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 9th June, 2014. Appearance: Pramit Roy, Adv.Ms.Lopita Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.Ms.Radhika Singh, Adv.Mr.Soumabho Ghosh, Adv.Ms.S.Nandy, Adv.The Court: The Senior Master appears to have passed a peremptory direction for disclosure of documents. Although the defendant no.2 has complied with the said direction but the plaintiff has failed to disclose the documents following which by an order dated 11th march, 2014 the learned Senior Master has declined to extend the time. In view of the peremptory nature of the order passed by him after he was permitted to do so by this Court in terms of the order dated 14th February, 2014, the plaintiff had conspicuously remained silent in not bringing to the notice o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. These three Appeals are filed by the Revenue against respective three Orders-in-Appeal dated 29.03.10, 28.01.10 and 22.03.10, all passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, involving a common issue. Hence, all these Appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts common in all these Appeals, relate to determination of assessable value of iron-ore fines exported by the Appellants. The Department assessed the respective shipping bills on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Undisputedly, the period involved in all these three Appeals, were after 13.06.2008, where the export duty of iron-ore fines has been charged on ad valorem rate basis. The Assessment Orders were challenged by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who after considering the arguments/grounds stated in the Appeal held that the said iron-ore fines be assessed to duty on the transaction value arrived at on the Dry Weight per Metric Ton (DMT) basis and not on Wet Weigh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/364/2010 dated 04.01.2011. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent had filed a shipping bill for export of 19500 WMT(Wet Metric Tonne)/17,745 DMT (Dry Metric Tonne) of iron-ore fines, declaring its assessable value @US $108 per DMT. The Department assessed the goods by enhancing its value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT and also the value was determined on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who had directed the assessment on DMT basis and allowed the appeal against the enhancement of value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided two issues: (i). Whether the export goods be assessed to duty on WMT...
Tag this Judgment!