Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Shree Chhabilaji Steel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty demand of Rs. 56,717/- had been confirmed by the lower appellate authority on waste and Scrap cleared without payment of duty claiming exemption under notification No. 49/97 CE dt. 01.08.97, on the ground that it would not be the waste and scrap (SIC) cleared prior to 1997. In addition penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed for contravention of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act. On hearing both the sides and noting that the question as to whether Waste and Scrap is entitled to exemption in terms of notification 49/97 is to be gone into in detail when the appeals are taken up for hearing, we direct pre-deposit of the entire amount in both the cases and on such deposit the pre-deposit of penalty in both the case shall be waived and recovery stayed thereof. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without any further notice. Compliance to be reported on 07.02.02....

Usha Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty demand of Rs. 13,005 and Rs. 10,695 respectively have been confirmed by the lower appellate authority on waste and Scrap cleared without payment of duty claiming exemption under notification NO. 49/97 CE dt. 01.08.97, on the ground that it would not be the waste and scrap generated prior to 1997. In addition penalty of Rs. 2500 each has been imposed for contravention of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act. On hearing both the sides and noting that the question as to whether Waste and Scrap is entitled to exemption in terms of notification 49/97 is to be gone into in detail when the appeals are taken up for hearing, we direct pre-deposit of the entire amount in both the cases and on such deposit the pre-deposit of penalty in both the case shall be waived and recovery stayed thereof. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without any further notice. Compliance to be reported on 04.01.02...

Capt. A.L. Fernandes Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)81ITD203(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXII. Bombay (Mrs. Shobha Majumdar), and pertains to the asst.yr. 1983-84.2. The solitary dispute neatly identified by Shri V.H. Patil, is crystallized here as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of salary received by the assesses from Mogul Lines Ltd. for rendering services on the board of a ship, when the ship was floating outside the territorial water of India, can be considered as salary received for rendering services outside India? How it is to be treated for the tax purposes?" 3. The assessee is an employee of the Mogul Lines Ltd., a Government of India undertaking. He was holding the rank of Master. He rendered services on the ship "Lok Nayak" from 1st May, 1982 to 9th Sept., 1982 and on "Lok Vinay" from 15th Oct., 1982 to 31st March, 1983. On these dates abovenamed ships were floating outside the territorial water of India. It is mentioned on the certificate d...

Ramkrishna Jairam Damdar Vs. Savita W/O Ramkrishna Damdar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)405; 2002CriLJ1884; II(2002)DMC270; 2002(2)MhLj65

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Udeshi, learned Counsel for the Non-applicants.2. The applicant/husband has impugned the order dated 5-12-2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 20/2000, which was filed for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the applicant/husband preferred a Criminal Revision Application before the Additional Sessions Judge, 19 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation.3. It is the applicant's case that he was married to the non-applicant No. 1 about 10 years back, and that there are two children from the said marriage. The elder daughter resides with the applicant, while the non-applicant No. 2 resides with the mother. The non-applicant No. 1 - wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance by filing an application on 16-11-1999, which came to be registered as Misc. Criminal Appli...

Jahidali Vahhidali Khan @ Javed Khan Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj283

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Jahidali Vahidali Khan @ Javed Khan, has impugned the order dated 31st August, 2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him 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. IV of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 31st August, 2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 3rd September, 2001 and their true copies are annexed as annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (annexure 'B') would show that the impugned order is founded on two CR's, namely CR No. 37/2001 under Sections 427, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, registered on the basis of a co...

Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR155; 2002(2)BomCR10; 2002(3)MhLj634

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal arises out of an arbitration proceeding. The Arbitrators nominated by the parties could not give consensual decision; they differed and thereupon reference was entered before the Umpire. The Umpire gave his award on 27-6-1995 in favour of the present appellants (For short, 'Sumitomo') accepting their claim directing the respondents (For short, 'ONGC) to pay Sumitomo a sum of Japanese Yen 129,764,463 together with interest at an annual rate of 4.50% from 15-5-1991 to the date of the award with costs and other ancillary direction. Upon the said award dated 27-6-1995 having been challenged in arbitration petition, the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 29-11-1999 set aside the award passed by the Umpire and allowed the arbitration petition giving rise to the present appeal.2. Sans unnecessary details the brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated first. ONGC is a company incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Com...

Voltas Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(140)ELT375(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petition is directed against the action of the Respondent in detaining the consignment of produce known as 'polytetrafluoroethylene resin dispersion' which is used for the purpose of importing non-stick property to utensils to prevent food and other materials from sticking to their surface. -2. The issue involved in the petition is whether this product is a plastic material or a paint. The contention is polytetrafluoroethylene is polymer and is, therefore, a plastic material and not a paint as contended by the Respondents.3. This controversy came to the shore with the import of above product under Bill of Entry No. 173/317, dated 21-1-1988 carrying GIF value in the sum of Rs. 15,578/-. This led to a show cause notice dated 18-3-1988 at the instance of the Respondents alleging breach of Government of India, Import Control Order No. 17/55, dated 7-12-1955 issued under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.4. The petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction...

Pushpa Vashdev Lokwani and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)MhLj141

J.G. Chitre, J.1. These two petitions are being decided by one common judgment and order as the petitions are revolving around the same sort of grievance echoed by the petitioners by assailing the same sort of judgment and order passed by the similar authority. In the matter of Writ Petition No. 390 of 1988 petitioners Pushpa Vashdev Lokwani and Nenumal Tejumal Pabul got a piece of land allotted to them in view of the scheme chalked out by the Government and its officers as well as the members of migrants from Pakistan in the year 1947 and on 22-2-1968. After elaborate discussion between the Ministers, Secretary and other officers on one side and leaders of such migrants from Pakistan the scheme was chalked out. The open plots were given to migrants who had lost the property in Pakistan as an attempt to compensate them. They were given full ownership of those plots and were authorised to sell them to other persons on getting consideration. The learned Counsel appearing for the petition...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaikrishna Jan Bahadur Singh and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR147; 2002(3)BomCR622; [2002(92)FLR1100]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Writ Petition No. 6443 of 1995 is filed by the petitioner employer challenging the order dated 20th October, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 648 of 1992 filed by the first respondent workman under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). Writ Petition No. 6473 of 1995 has also been filed by the petitioner employer challenging the order dated 20th October, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 982 of 1993 filed by the same workman.2. Facts in both the petitions are briefly set out as under:---The petitioner employer suspended the first respondent workman on 13th October, 1990 for assaulting a co-worker and using vulgar and abusive language as also for threatening him with dire consequences. This suspension was to remain in force pending the preparation of the charge-sheet and unt...

Ganpat Pandurang Panchal (Father of the Detenue) Vs. State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)528; (2002)104BOMLR209

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who describes himself as the father of the detenu Ramesh Ganpat Panchal, has impugned the order dated 8th June, 2001, passed by the 2nd respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, 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) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 8th June, 2001 was served on the detenu on 11th June, 2001 and their true copies have been annexed to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on CR, namely, CR No. 112/2001, under Section 34 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered on the basis of a c...