Mumbai Court January 2000 Judgments

Cce Vs. Bombay Tyres International Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(97)LC169Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case the Assistant Collector classified tyres and tubes for forklifts manufactured by the respondents herein, under CET Sub-heading 4011.91 and 4013.91 respectively, rejecting the assessees' claim for classification under CET Sub-heading 4011.99 and 4013.99, and confirmed differential duty demands of Rs. 4,91,663.44 and Rs. 4948.77 respectively. The lower appellate authority set aside the demands holding that the demands can only operate prospectively from the date of issue of the first show cause notice i.e. of 14.3.1990 and holding that since the second show cause notice dated 5.4.1990 is subsequent to the issue of the first notice, the demand is valid only for the period 14.3.1990 to 31.3.1990. The Revenue is aggrieved by the setting aside of the demand covered by the show cause notice dated 14.3.1990.2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue as to whether the demand for clearances made in accordance with the approved classification lists can operate with retrospe...

Dempo Engg. Services Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT328Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are Civil Engineers and Contractors. They are aggrieved by the Order No. 25/ Collr. Goa/CEX/94, dated 26-12-1994 whereunder they were asked to pay a duty of Rs. 9,79,498/- payable on the Steel Structurals classified also under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By the said order the Collector also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for contravention of Rules 173Q and 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellants are civil engineers and contractors. They undertook what are known as Civil Contracts and also entered into sub-contracts for construction at factory site relating to structural fabrications.The sub-contractors in this case were Indian Commerce and Industries Co. Ltd. (known as ICI) who were independent fabricators. The appellants entered into contract for building factory and structural fabrications. The dealings between the appellants and its employers Goa Shipyard Ltd. was on principal to principal basis and equall...

Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)76ITD389(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 1992-93. A short but an interesting question has been raised in this appeal and that is as to whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 54E in respect of the capital gain arising on transfer of a capital assets on which depreciation has been allowed and which is deemed as short-term capital gains under section 50 of the Act.2. The assessee is a private limited company. It was a partner in a firm called M/s. D Manekji & Associates. It was dissolved in the year 1984 and the assessee was allotted a flat against the balance standing to its credit in the capital account with the firm. The flat has thereafter been shown as a capital asset in assessee's books of account and depreciation in respect thereto has been claimed from year to year.The cost of the gross block was Rs. 1,87,390 and depreciation up to 31-3-1991 was Rs. 44,875. The resulting written down value as on 3...

S.S. Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it pertains to asst. yr.1990-91. Vide ground Nos. 1 to 3, the assessee contends that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance in respect of halting expenses at 1/4th of the total claim.2. The facts in short are that the assessee is a practising barrister.In the course of his professional activities, he incurred expenditure on travel and for stay at Delhi, Pune and other places. In the return for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee debited conveyance and travelling charges of Rs. 31,388 and halting charges of Rs. 39,591. The AO observed that r. 6D is applicable to the aforementioned expenditure and in the absence of full details, he disallowed the claim of halting charges. He also disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 out of conveyance and travelling expenses. The plea of the assessee that r. 6D is applicable only when an employee of any assessee travels but not applicable to individual assessee for self travel was rejecte...

Shri Khanderao A. Mohite Vs. New Standard Engg. Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR13; 2000(3)BomCR376; (2000)2BOMLR14; [2000(86)FLR18]

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition is at the instance of the workman filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and correctness of the award passed by the 4th Labour Court, Bombay on 23-10-97 whereby the said Labour Court has refused to award back wages from the date of termination till 15-7-1994. The petitioner workman has thus prayed that the award passed by the Labour Court be modified by awarding full back wages to him from the date of termination till the petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 19-7-96. 2. The petitioner has set out the following facts in the writ petition:-The petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 1, namely, New Standard Engg. Co. Ltd., in or about the year 1957. He was continued in service of respondent No. 1 and was promoted from time to time and lastly worked with the 1st respondent as electrician Grade-I. He proceeded on sanctioned privilege leave from 16-4-79 to 8-5-79. He did not report for duty on the e...

B.T. Shipping London Ltd. and Another Vs. Smt. Arati Narayanan and Oth ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ACJ2096; 2000(2)ALLMR86; 2000(3)BomCR381; [2000(86)FLR901]; 2000(2)MhLj832

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The order passed by the 2nd Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai on 4-11-97 in Application No. (W.C.A.) 191/A-50 of 1997 whereby he directed the petitioners to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 27,00,635/- in the Court is impugned by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The 1st petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of England and is based in the United Kingdom. The 2nd petitioner is an Indian company which operates as an agent on behalf of various shipping companies including the company known as B.T. Fleet Personnel Ltd., (Burmuda). The 1st respondent is the widow of Shri Shankara Raman Narayanan who was employed by B.T. Fleet Personnel Ltd., through 2nd petitioner as their managers. The employee died during accident on board m.v. Nautilus on 9-8-96. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents are the father, mother and elder sister of the deceased employee. The said Narayanan was employed in accordance with...

Shri K.V. Acharya and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR283; 2000(3)BomCR372; 2000CriLJ2038; 2000(3)MhLj90

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are impugning the show cause notice dated 15-11-95, the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 2-4-96 and the order in appeal passed on 17-6-96 by respondent No. 3. In substance the grievance of the petitioners is suspension of their licence to keep a place of public entertainment for 15 days.2. The petitioners are partners in the registered partnership firm of M/s. Golden Crown which is engaged in restaurant business at 29/33, Jankar Village Estate, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai. The petitioners were granted licence being Police Licence No. 36/1986 on 25-6-1986 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tardeo Division, to keep a place of public entertainment. The said licence which was initially granted upto 31-3-87 continued to be renewed every year from time to time. The last renewal was made upto 31-3-97. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners by the Dy. Commissione...

Sayyed HussaIn Ali Asiq Ali Vs. Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Pol ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR636; 2000BomCR(Cri)636; (2000)1BOMLR474

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who styles himself as the brother of the detenu Sayed Rafiq Ali Hasmat Ali Sayed has impugned the detention order dated 11th February, 1999 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), (also referred to as 'the MPDA Act').The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 11th February 1999 was served on the detenu on 22-2-19992. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition a large number of grounds have been pleaded by Mr. U. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner but, since in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on a solitary ground, viz., 7(A...

Ramdas Govind Bakhle Vs. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(85)FLR59]; (2000)ILLJ1307Bom

Srikrishna, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated September 10, 1997 made by the respondent Corporation, by which certain amounts of Provident Fund and Gratuity payable to the petitioner for the service rendered by him under the respondent Corporation have been withheld.2. The respondent is a Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation and the petitioner was working as an employee in the service of the respondent Corporation from October 18, 1969. During his career, the petitioner started as a Junior Assistant and reached the rank of Assistant Manager by about the year 1995. On April 24, 1996 the petitioner was served with a charge, sheet which alleged that during his tenure as Branch Manager, during the period June 2, 1992 to May 19, 1995, one J.N. Dhage who was working as a clerk-cum-cashier in the Sholapur Branch had dishonestly and, fraudulently misappropriated cash amounting to Rs. 6,02,000/-, causing pecuniary ...

Slim Babamiya Sutar Alias Jamadar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000CriLJ2696

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 21st February 1995, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 59/94, convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter :-(i) Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo one month's R. I.;(ii) Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer two years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-in default to undergo one month's R. I.; and(iii) Under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer three years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo one month's R. I.The substantive sentences of the Appellant were ordered to run concurrently.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-Sometimes between 1986 and 14th August 1992, the Appellant was working as a servant of the deceased Aspi and was residing with him at 89, M. G. Road, Pune. Aspi was a bachelor...