Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Atlas Realtors and ors. Vs. Margao Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR320a

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. These two petitions raise a common question of law and the Advocates appearing in the petitions are also the same and made similar arguments in both the matters. Therefore, we are deciding both these petitions by this common judgment.2. The reliefs sought for in Writ Petition No. 404/93 are for a declaration that the Public Notice dated 9th September, 1981 with the Order of the Director of Municipal Administration dated 5th April, 1990 and letter dated 6th September, 1991, (Annexure P. 2 colly) are ultra vires, without jurisdiction, illegal and void and consequently, reliefs in the form of prayers (b), (c) and (d), which are for the purpose of the direction of respondent No. 1 for quashing the demand of licence fee of Rs. 29,420/- and for refund of Rs. 28,520/- alongwith interest, etc.3. So far as Writ Petition No. 203/95 is concerned, the relief is in respect of the said same Public Notice dated 9th September, 1981 with the order of the Director of Municipal Admin...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Divisional Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR626; [2001(90)FLR394]

S.D. Gundewar, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Akola (hereinafter referred to as the M.S.R.T.C.) seeks to challenge the order dated 30-10-1990 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision (U.L.P.) No. 63/1986. 2. A few facts leading to the present dispute, in brief, are under:The respondent Syed Azgar Ali was working as conductor with the petitioner. On 4-1-1984, he was on duty as a conductor on the City Bus No. 7519 which was going from Akola City to Airport. This bus came to be checked near Shioni Stop by the Flying Squad of the petitioner, and at that time, there were in all 33 passengers consisting of 30 adults and 3 children in the bus. Out of them, three passengers were not having tickets though the respondent had recovered 60 ps. from each of them towards fare. The Checking Officer recorded the statement of those passengers and that of the driver of the said bus. The respondent, however, declined to g...

Ferromet Concentrates Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR317

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Shri Usgaonkar, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Kakodkar, Sr. Advocate for respondent No. 3. The prayers in the petition are that this Court should direct the respondents to notify area in respect of Sukerkar's mine for regrant and to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 9-8-1988, which is still pending and further to restrain the respondents No. 1 and 2 from granting prospecting licence and mining licence in respect of the aforesaid area to any other person until the application of the petitioner 'Exhibit A' is disposed of.2. We heard Mr. Usgaonkar at length, so also Mr. Kakodkar. We are disposing of this petition only on the question of delay, laches and negligence because what is borne out by the record is that the respondent No. 3 had filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 327/89, which petition was subsequently allowed to be withdrawn by the Division Bench on 11-10-1989 in view of the Govt. Letter No. ...

Indian Institute of Bankers Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax (Exemption)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Mumbai)523

ORDERR.V. Easwar, J.M.These cross-appeals pertain to the assessment year 1996-97. In the appeal by the department, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the assessee's claim that it is an educational institution and hence its income is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, is challenged and in the appeal by the assessee, objection is taken to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), denying such exemption in respect of its income by way of dividend and interest.2. The appeals arise this way. The assessee is a company incorporated in 1928 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It was allowed to omit the word 'limited' from its name under section 26 of the said Act, which is the forerunner of section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, since its objects were charitable. The principal objects of the assessee, as per its memorandum of association, are :(i) To encourage the study of the theory of banking and for that purpose to institute a scheme of examinations and...

Atlas Realtors and Etc. Vs. the Margao Municipal Council and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom456; 2001(3)BomCR320

Deshpande, J.1. These two petitions raise a common question of -law and the advocates appearing in the petitions are also the same and made similar arguments in both the matters. Therefore, we are deciding both these petitions by this common judgment.2. The reliefs sought for in Writ Petition No. 404/93 are for a declaration that the Public Notice dated 9th September, 1981 with the Order of the Director of Municipal Administration dated 5th April, 1990 and letter dated 5th September, 1991, (Annexure P. 2 colly.) are ultra vires, without jurisdiction, illegal and void and consequently, reliefs in the form of prayers (b), (c) and (d), which are for the purpose of direction to respondent No. 1 for quashing the demand of licence fee of Rs. 29,420/- and for refund of Rs. 28,520/- along with interest, etc.3. So far as Writ Petition No. 203/95 is concerned, the relief is in respect of the said same Public Notice dated 9th September, 1981 with the Order of the Director of Municipal Administrat...

M/S. Nrc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved is regarding admissibility of modvat credit on capital goods under rule 57Q. Items involved are M.S. angles, polyester resin, black rubber sheet, unit assembly and base assembly and base assembly. The amount involved is totalling Rs.1,12,046/-. After hearing both parties, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if I order freezing of the amount in RG23C account during the pendency of the appeal, as I understand that the larger bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills (108) ELT 47 has been referred to further larger bench. Freezing of the amount has to be undertaken by the appellant within one week from today as the order has been pronounced in the presence of the party. On such action being taken, there will be stay of collection of duty till disposal of the appeal....

Universal Information, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC802

1. The application by the manufacturer is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 3.87 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. 50.000. The other application is by the Managing Director of the manufacturer, on whom a penalty of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed.2. The manufactured and cleared uninterrupted power supply system (UPSS). The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the finding of the Additional Commissioner, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that the applicant did not include charges towards batteries, and another heads of account such as maintenance charges, installation charges etc., which were nothing other than the cost of these machines.3. The common contention for both the applicants is that maintenance and other such charges were optional, and hence not includible in the assessable value. Further, the department was aware of levy of these charges and the supply of batteries. Records were available to the department to the officers and auditors etc.4. The Additional Commi...

Dear Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT129Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs imposed under Section 114(1) of the Act, on the ground that the skirts tendered for export was over valued.2. After heading both sides, we find a prima facie in favour of the applicant so far as the penalty is concerned. The evidence relied upon by the department to establish over valuation consists of the price at which such goods are sold at "Fashion Street" and the "enquiry" conducted by an officer of the department to the shop-keeper at Colaba.It is well known that the goods sold at "Fashion Street" are largely export rejects or over run and the price at which they are sold cannot prima facie be the value for international price. The enquiry by the officer at the Colaba shop led him by co-incidence to an exporter of Jaipur who apparently told him that he could supply the skirts in question at much cheaper rate. At this stage, we find this evidence vague and made even less acceptable by the fact that cross-exa...

M/S. Plate Process and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC524

1. Shri N.G. Rao on behalf of the applicant moves the instant application for modification of the order passed by me on 15.9.2000 certified on 20.10.2000, dismissing the appeals E/760 to 762/2000-Mum.By that order I have dismissed three appeals filed against the orders-in-appeals No.21 to 23 made on 4.1.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, denying modvat credit. It is the case of the appellants that the appellant was a division of Dinesh Mills Ltd. and for that purpose he had submitted before me balance sheet of Dinesh Mills Ltd. which indicated that the appellant was a division of Dinesh Mills Ltd. No other evidence was given to me at that time. Now Shri Rao submits on the basis of legal advice, order of the Gujarat High Court made on 20.4.1991 in company application no. 236/80 and company Petition no.114/1980 where under the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat ordered amalgamation of the two companies, namely the appellant as well as Dinesh Mi...

M/S. Universal Capsules Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Today an application for stay has been posted. The appellants are manufacturing hard gelatin capsules shell I.P. of various sizes falling under heading 96.02 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.The said gelatine capsule shell are used in pharmaceutical industry.The appellants were taking the benefit of modvat on capital goods and they filed proper declaration under rule 57T. By the order-in-original in disposing of a show cause notice dated 4.2.1998 the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty of Rs. 5,86,622/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. An appeal was filed and in the appellate order which is impugned before me the appellate authority has held as follows:- "Regarding items shown at Sr.No. 11 & 28 are concerned lower authority held that entry also excludes "compressors" of chapter heading 8414 as such credit availed against Sr.Nos.11 & 28 is denied. Item No. 11 is "Fabricated Panel G.L. panels for Fan Assembly" and items at Sr.No.28 is "Air Compre...