Mumbai Court September 1996 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chlochem Indus

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT414Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals filed by the department are listed for admission today. None is present for the Respondent.2. Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. JDR submits that in both the cases Modvat credit is taken on the certificate issued after the receipt of the inputs. Therefore triable issue exists as to whether such a course of action is permissible.3. Considering the submissions made there is no dispute that the goods have been received. There is also no dispute that the certificate have been issued and produced before the Department. Merely because the certificates were applied for at a latter date, by itself, would not provide any bar in taking the credit on such certificates, when they are validly issued. There therefore, does not seem to be any point of law involved calling for admission of the appeals to be heard on merits. Exercising the powers under second proviso of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, therefore both the appeals are not admitted and are dismissed....

Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)60ITD527(Mum.)

1. This appeal was decided vide Tribunal's order dated 20-4-1994.However, it was recalled vide order dated 28-9-1994 in M.A. No.314/Bom./94 read with corrigendum dated 20-5-1996.2. The order of the Tribunal was recalled on the short question whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 19,17,643 being the amount disallowed by the Assessing Officer out of the interest payments made by the assessee. The ground raised on this issue in the appeal memo reads as follows :- "The assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 19,17,643 made by the Income-tax Officer as excess payment of interest. The assessee submits that when the amount advanced to Dharmayug Investment Limited, the wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, was admittedly not out of borrowings but out of the profits of the Company, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on notional basis that the assessee could have saved interest expenditure had it utilised its funds t...

Bombay Gas Public Ltd. Vs. Laxman Dhaku and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1997(75)FLR125]; (1997)ILLJ1209Bom

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated October 23, 1987, made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, commonly in Application (IT) Nos. 46 of 1984, 57 to 65 of 1984 under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the writ petition stands dismissed with effect from December 1, 1995 as against Respondents 2, 5 and 9, who are the Respondent workmen before the Industrial Tribunal in Application (IT) Nos. 58 of 1984, 61 of 1984 and 65 of 1984. The order made by the Industrial Tribunal in Application (IT) No. 46 of 1984, in which Gangaram Ramchandra Chawan was the Applicant workman, does not appear to have been challenged. Thus, today the writ petition subsists only in respect of the common order dated October 29, 1982 made in Application (IT) Nos. 57, 59, 60, 62, 63 and 64 of 1984. 3. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company whic...

Bhauji S/O Ramchandra Lande and ors. Vs. Western Coal Fields Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR298

B.U. Wahane, J.1. The nine first appeals could be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as common evidence was led by the parties in 102 cases and common judgment is passed by the special learned Tribunal. Two fold questions are raised in these appeals, viz.(1) Whether the Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Rules 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1957) is beyond the competence of the Rule Making Authority of the Central Government provided under Section 27 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1957), as well as beyond the legislative competence of sub-ordinate Legislation?(2) Whether each appeal is barred by limitation?2. The appellants/original applicants filed applications under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957, for determination of the fair compensation. The lands of the appellants and the other owners residing in Tahsil Rajura, District Chandrapur, were acq...

Mazda Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT767Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Though adjournment is asked for by the appellants, considering the facts and circumstances by not granting the adjournment, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. A truck containing contraband goods was intercepted. On detailed search thereof, it was found that the truck was loaded with soda ash bags consigned to the present appellant and underneath thereof some packages containing contraband goods were found. The soda ash bags have been ordered confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act on the allegation that they were used for the purpose of concealing contraband goods.3. Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. JDR submits that the very fact that contraband goods were found to have been concealed under the soda ash bags, the bags became liable to confiscation under the said provision as an article used for concealment of the contraband goods.4. There is no denial to the fact that the gunny bags and the packages containing contraband goods were separate and the contraband were not conceale...

income-tax Officer Vs. Srichand Hariram

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), C-Range, Mumbai, and pertains to the assessment year 1983-84.2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal projects the following grievance. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Dy. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction claimed under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act on the exporting of agricultural primary commodities." 3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. During the relevant assessment year, assessee exported the following goods :Description Amount (Rs.)Grapes 2,75,990Water Melon 51,760Chickoo 5,820Oranges 31,900Mangoes 57,42,654 ---------------Total 61,08,124 --------------- On the aforesaid amount, assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC as under :1% on total turnover Rs. 61,0815% of excess of the previous assessmentyear export sales 2,52,450 --------...

Ramesh Ganpatrao Wankhede Vs. the Works Manager, Central Workshop, Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR752

ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner a Fire Warden working in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity) is challenging the judgment by Industrial Court dismissing his complaint. Bythe said complaint, the petitioner had objected to the withdrawal of 20% of extra pay which was being given to him. The said pay was withdrawn by a communication dated 4-2-1988 and with effect from 1-2-1988. It was the case of the petitioner before the Industrial Court that the petitioner was duly selected for the post of Fire Warden. His appointment order is annexed herein and his appointing authority mentioned there is the Chief Personnel Officer. 2. The petitioner contended in his complaint that, to begin with he was posted in the Central Workshop, Dapoli at Pune where he continued upto 14-6-1986 when he was transferred to the Central Workshop, Nagpur. The main reliance of the petitioner in the complaint was on the order dated 7-6-19...

Union of India Vs. Mehta Construction Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR108

Dr. Saraf, J.1. This is an appeal of the Union of India from the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 18th October, 1994, rejecting the Arbitration Petition of the appellants for selling aside the award of the arbitrator. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : 'The appellants entered into an agreement with the respondents. M/s. Mehta Construction. Co., for the construction of the G.M.T. Office Block at Cadell Road, Dadar, Bombay. The value of the work was Rs. 2,06,974,162.35. The contract was executed by and between the parties for execution of the above work. Under the terms of the contract, the work was to be completed by 20th February, 1983. However, the time for completion was extended by the appellants up to 20th August, 1985 and the work was also completed by the respondents by that time. During the progress of the work, payment were made by the appellants to the respondents from item to time. After the completion of the work, the respondents by ...

Yogini @ Mona Avinash Nath Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR379

A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both sides.2. On motion made by Mr. Pradhan for the petitioners, the names of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are deleted.3. Rule was issued in this petition on 26th August, 1996 by us and having regard to the nature of the relief claimed, it was made returnable within a period of two weeks.4. The short point that falls for our consideration is the validity of Rule 3. 3. 3. 2 of the Rules for admission to the medical, dental, ayurved and homeopathy courses in the State of Maharashtra for the academic year 1996-97. The said Rule reads as under :---'Rule : 3. 3. 3. 2 :---The applicants who have passed S.S.C. (or equivalent) and-or H.S.C. (or equivalent) examination from an Institution situated out-side Maharashtra but within the territory of India and whose parents are domicile of Maharashtra State will be eligible for admission in relaxation of rule 3. 3. 1 and/or 3. 3. 2.'5. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is the daughter of an Officer of the Indian Admi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. National Rayon Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal of the Department is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 123/Addl. Collr. dated 16-11-1992 of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-III dropping the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice dated 17-12-1986 for recovery of Rs. 21,150/-from the Respondents for wrong utilisation of the credit availed of between 15-3-1986, to 24-3-1986. The Show Cause Notice was issued invoking provisions of Rule 57-I of the Rules, read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act by the Superintendent. Initially the said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated upon by the Assistant Collector. In the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) it was observed that because the period involved was beyond the normal period of six months, it was not open for the Assistant Collector to adjudicate and hence the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded for being placed before the Competent adjudicating authority and pursuant thereto, the same was placed before the ...