Mumbai Court January 1998 Judgments

Prakash R. Mehta and anr. Vs. Veena D. Chhablani and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR484; (1998)100BOMLR629

Aurumugham, J.1. Leave to amend the appeal by adding grounds granted.2. The order passed in Notice of Motion No. 2833 of 1994 dated 19.9.1997 by the learned Single Judge is sought to be challenged by filing this appeal on the grounds of its incorrectness and propriety.3. The factual position is that the suit property is admittedly a dwelling house, but however belongs to the mother of the plaintiff and mother of Ramchand Chandulal Mehta. The original defendants in the suit are the heirs of said Ramchand Chandulal Mehta. The mother of the plaintiff Smt. Kaiserbai admittedly died on 12th June, 1990 while the father of the defendants died on 2.4.1990. The suit property is a flat standing in the name of mother of the plaintiff. Since she died intestate half share was claimed, but however, defendants have relied upon the deeds of relinquishments annexed to the affidavit in reply which shows that the plaintiff has relinquished her share. The learned trial Judge while passing the impugned ord...

Jay Laminart Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT402Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture decorative laminated sheets falling under sub-heading 3920.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 20-7-1989 the Central Excise Officers visited their factory and found that they had purchased and received during the period 21-3-1989 to 23-5-1989 imported base paper weighing 4,293 Kgs. from M/s. Sandek India (P) Ltd. but it was not accounted in any statutory Central Excise record and in raw material register in Form IV and the material was issued for production of laminated sheets without issuing any issue slips and without accounting for it. The officers found that the appellant had manufactured laminated sheets therefrom and cleared the same clandestinely without payment of duty. The duty involved comes to Rs. 6,83,294.44. Statements were recorded from Shri B.M. Patel, the Excise Clerk and Power of Attorney holder of the appellant and from Shri J.T. Patel, Director of the Appellant. Shri J.T. Patel in the statement dated 27-7-1989 gave a detailed ...

Asmaco Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(59)ECC395

1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 12-10-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Department had filed a review application before that authority seeking review of order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division I, Thane granting Modvat credit on certain inputs destroyed by fire without being used in the manufacture of the finished product.2. The appellants herein manufacture BOPP tapes. The Assistant Collector initially issued a show cause notice for denying Modvat on the inputs mixed glue and coated film which were destroyed in fire before being used in the manufacture of the final product. However, on considering of the appellants explanation, the Assistant Collector observed that there was a trade notice dated 9-10-1988 of the Central Excise Collectorate, Bombay, according to which credit of duty paid on the inputs is permissible only if they are actually used in the manufacture of final product and no inp...

Mahalaxmi Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR35; 1998(3)BomCR796; 1998(1)MhLj826

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J. 1. The petitioners, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of constitution of India seek to assail the legality and correctness of the order dated 16-4-85 passed by the School Tribunal. Bombay Region, Bombay whereby the said tribunal set aside the notification dated 31st July, 1984 issued by the petitioners removing the respondent No. 3 herein from the post of Headmaster and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No. 3 herein in the same post with consequential benefits. 2. The first petitioner Mahalaxmi Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai is the public trust and runs a school known as Vidyamandir High School. The second petitioner is a Chairman of the trust namely the first petitioner. Shri. Jagannath Gajanan Jadhav who is impleaded as respondent No. 3 herein and hereinafter referred to as an 'employee' was appointed as Headmaster on 13-6-79 by the management of the first petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'management'. The employee was tempo...

S.R. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT890Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants M/s. Ram Decorative and Industrial Laminates are manufacturers of paper-based decorative, laminated boards falling under Tariff Item 15A(2) of the old Central Excise Tariff and presently under sub-heading 3920.31 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, according to the Department, whose case is that the appellant's premises were searched by the Central Excise officers following information that they had adopted certain methods of evading Central Excise duty by declaring in their price lists submitted to the Department a much lower price for their goods wherein the expenses incurred towards marketing and sales promotion were not included which should form part of the assessable value. But these expenses were passed on off loaded to their associate firms who are the other appellants Ram Laminates Bombay, and Poona, Ram Metal Industrial and another service agent appellant Maharashtra Laminates, Bombay. These firms raised separate bills for such expenses which were substantia...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Patwa Kinariwala Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT160Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Respondents manufacture electronic yarn cleaner falling under Heading 85.43 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed a refund claim for the period 8-4-1989 to 28-4-1989 amounting to Rs. 1,47,341/- on the ground that on account of the amendment of Notification 119/89 of 27-4-1989 they were entitled to concessional rate of duty under Notification 175/86 w.e.f. 1-4-1989. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned refund of Rs. 28,743/- out of the total claim. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara reviewed this order of Asstt. Commissioner sanctioning the refund because the order of refund was not legal and proper as the Respondents had already collected the duty involved in the refund claim from their customers. A review application was therefore filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that order for review under Section 35E(2) should be followed by a show cause notice under...

Cce and Cus. Vs. Euphoric Pharmaceuticals Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT157Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal the issue is whether single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin is required to pay duty at the material time namely February, 1989 to March, 1989 in view of the fact that Rifampicin was taken out of the 1st Schedule and brought into the IInd Schedule in the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 and also in view of the Notification 44/90 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondents did not pay duty on the single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin because of Notification 29/88 according to which all formulations, based on the list of Bulk Drugs specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 either individually or in combination with other drugs specified in the First Schedule attract nil rate of duty as per Serial No. 1 to the notification.Rifampicin was taken out of the First Schedule and brought under Second Schedule by issue of order FO/82/(E), dated 18-1-1989 which meant that all formulations based on Rifampic...

Nanak Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT381Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported a consignment of old and used diesel engines total 94 numbers and filed the home consumption bill of entry on 15-12-1994 in the Nhava Sheva Custom House. The total value declared for this consignment was Rs. 5,91,655/- CIF. The clearance of the goods was claimed under OGL. The Custom House took the view that the goods are not covered by OGL and required specific Import Licence which the appellants did not possess as per the Import Policy of 1992-97. The appellants dispensed with the issue of written Show Cause Notice and the matter was adjudicated after hearing them, by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, who passed order dated 27-1-1995. The impugned goods were confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a redemption fine of Rs. 9,50,000/- and the Dy. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal against the order was rejected as time ba...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Lakhanpal National Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed against the decision dated 15-1-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Bombay, whereunder he held that the respondents were entitled to Modvat credit in respect of input namely maize starch received by them.2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of dry battery cell falling under Chapter 85. They were availing Modvat facilities and filed declaration under Rule 57G of the Central excise Rules stating that battery grade starch falling under sub-heading 3505.70 would be one of the inputs used in the manufacture of final-products. The jurisdictional Superintendent found that the respondents had availed of Modvat credit of Rs. 17,262/- on maize starch falling under Chapter 1103.10 during the month of April, 1990 without filing necessary declaration under Rule 57G. Similarly during the period May, 1990 to August, 1990 they availed of Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 32,690/- in respect of same maize starch as usually, of course...

Ghulamnabi B. Khan Vs. Bombay Housing and Area Development Board and O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR473; 1999(1)BomCR522; (1998)2BOMLR632

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12th March, 1996 whereby the suit filed by the present appellant has been dismissed. The appellant herein had filed a suit against the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who are Authorities under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Respondent No. 5 is allottee of a premises allotted by respondent No. 1. It was the contention of the appellant herein that he was a licensee of respondent No. 5 in a room admeasuring 10 'x 10' in Jagdish Bhavan, Mahim. A portion of the said building collapsed pursuant to which the respondent No. 1 issued notice to the occupants. Pending development, the occupants were rehabilitated in what is known as transit accommodation. The dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 5 is in respect of the allotment of the premises of the respondent No. 1 to the occupant. It is the contention of the appellant that he was the occupant and as such entitled to be allotted premises in t...