Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Govindsons Flashlight Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are not present but request disposal of the appeal on merits vide a written memorandum.2. The issue involved is the inclusion of the cost of secondary packing when calculating the assessable value of torches cleared by the appellants. The Assistant Collector confirmed differential duty of Rs. 8,998.50 relying upon an earlier order on the same issue passed by his predecessor. The assessees then filed an appeal. The Commissioner relying upon the Supreme Court judgement in the case of MRF [1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC)] upheld the Assistant Collector's order. Hence the present appeal.3. In the appeal memorandum reliance has been placed on earlier orders.The appellants have taken out a phrase from the Supreme Court order relied upon to submit that the ratio of Godfrey Phillips [1985 (22) ELT 306 and Geep Industrial Syndicate [1992 (61)ELT 328] should be relied upon. It is their submission that a ratio different from the MRF is to be derived from the earlier orders and that the ...

M/S. Impel Petro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner Central Excise Pune II vide his Order-in-Original No. 15/CEX/1998 dt. 31.8.98 confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 29,56,813.84 as also the reversal of modvat credit wrongly taken of Rs. 72,151/-. Certain goods not recorded in the statutory register were confiscated, but were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fines. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed upon M/s. IPPL. The assessees have filed an appeal and also an application for waiver of predeposit of the duties confirmed and the penalties imposed. The penalties were imposed on two other units namely M/s. Elchem and M/s. Dekul Chemicals but their appeals are not before us today.2. The applicants were summoned for hearing of their stay applications.Directions were made for service through the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. We find that intimation have been returned undelivered by the postal authorities. This application is therefore being taken up for disposal Ex-parte.3. The proceeding show that go...

Smt. Nazma Ismail Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra, at the Instance ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)407; (2001)2BOMLR255; 2001CriLJ1869; 2001(76)ECC739

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by appellant/accused No. 2. She was tried by Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Gr. Bombay in Special Case No. 200/1992. By the Impugned judgment delivered on 17th July, 1996 the learned Judge found the appellant accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. She is sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default to suffer further R. I. for six months.2. The prosecution story is as follows :-On 3rd April, 1992 Police Constable Galugade, then attached to Narcotic Cell Head Office. Azad Maidan, received information at 10.15 a. m. in the morning. It was informed that one Shafiq Shaikh was likely to transact in narcotic drugs at about 1.00 p. m. near the hotel Holiday Inn at Juhu. Police Constable Galugade passed the information to P.S.I. Pujari and P.I. Khedkar. The said information was reduced to writing in information book by P. ...

Anant Dagdu Sanap and ors. Vs. Arvind Shridhar Ghatpande and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR147; 2001(3)BomCR397

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India taken exception to the order passed by the VI Addl. District Judge, Pune dated 23.4.1992 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1991.2. The petitioners are the owners in respect of the property at 81, Old Narayan Peth, Pune. Undisputedly, the contesting respondent No. 1 is claiming through the original tenant Satyabhamabai Shridhar Ghatpande. The said Satyabhamabai Shridhar Ghatpande was tenant in respect of the premises in the above said property. It is not in dispute that the petitioners instituted insolvency proceedings against themselves. In that proceedings Court Receiver came to be appointed in respect of the property including the suit premises.3. In the said insolvency proceedings the respondent No. 1 moved an application, being Insolvency Petition No. 12 of 1963 (Ex- 434), praying that the Receiver be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum to him or i...

Hotel Horizon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR186; [2001(90)FLR967]; (2002)ILLJ186Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner, a five star hotel, is aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 24th July 1997 passed by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Mumbai in Complaint ULP No. 226 of 1993 filed by the respondent employee under Item I (A, B. D, E. F & G) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act against the order of termination passed by the petitioner terminating the services of the employee with effect from 20th June, 1992 on the ground of loss of confidence on account of an Incident which appears to have taken place on 21.12.1991 when the said employee Shri Vincent was working in his third shift from 11.00 p.m. (on 20th December, 1991) to 7.00 a.m. on 21st December. 1991. The petitioner passed the impugned order without holding a domestic enquiry before terminating the said employee from employment. In the order of termination it is mentioned that the Security Supervisor Mr. Suleman Shaikh on his round at 4.00 a.m. on 21st December. 1991 found the said employee movi...

Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR108; (2001)166CTR(Bom)7; [2001]249ITR265(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The following question of law was referred to the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay)(page 55) :'Whether the amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000 received by draft dated December 5, 1989, in consideration of surrendering the statutory tenancy rights and/or possessory rights in property situated at Cadell Road, Prabhadevi, Bombay, can be construed to be a casual and non-recurring receipt within the meaning of Section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such is exigible to tax under Section 56 of the Act ?'2. The above question was answered against the assessee. Hence, the assessee-Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. has come by way of Income-tax Reference No. 123 of 1996. The above question is also raised in conjoint matters. Hence, by this common judgment, all the above matters are disposed of.3. Facts :The assessee, Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd., is engaged in the business of weaving and dyeing of cloth. The assessee filed its return of income for t...

Hotel Labour Union Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 3 ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR997]; (2001)IILLJ164Bom

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the Hotel Labour Union seeking absorption and/or regularisation of the canteen workers who are currently working in the canteen of respondent No. 2 VSNL. The petitioner claims that the work of the canteen is integral to the work of the establishment and the work is of perennial nature. The contract employees who are listed at Exhibit A have been working in the canteen for number of years and they are seeking absorption in the permanent service of respondent No. 2. 3. Considering the controversy between the parties and prayers made in the petition, we are inclined to issue a direction as given in Writ Petition No. 101 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 425 of 1998 by the Division Bench on April 21, 1998. Division Bench has followed the directions given by the Supreme Court in All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Registered) v. Delhi Administration . Hence we pass the fol...

William Lewis Vs. Andrew D'Souza

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR106; 2001(3)BomCR240

A.M. Khanwilkar. J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay dated 23-8-1991 in Int. Notice No. 2382 of 1988 in Appeal No. 440 of 1984. The said interim notice was filed by respondent-original defendant praying for amendment so as to contend that the petitioner is the landlord. The Court below rightly observed that the decree passed by the trial Court against the respondent-defendant was only on the ground of default and therefore the proposed amendment was wholly inconsequential. It is not disputed that the trial Court has decreed the suit for possession only on the ground of default within the meaning of section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act and not on the ground of disclaimer of title of the petitioner as owner of the said property. In the circumstances, in my view, the amendment sought for is wholly insignificant and would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner-landlord in any ...

Fcb Ulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT84Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for condonation of the delay, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. The appellants are Service Tax assessee. According to them the payment was in time. According to the department the payment was delayed attracting levy of interest. The appellants contested this by filing an appeal. There was a delay of about 25 days for which the appellants sought condonation on the ground that the appellants were attempting to put across their point of view to the concerned officers.The Commissioner did not find it sufficient reason for condonation.Holding that the delay was due to negligence he dismissed the appeal on limitation.3. On perusal of the basic issue we find it to be an arguable one. We also do not find the request for condonation as unreasonable. It could be said that after the assessment order was passed, the appellant would be wasting their time in seeking discussion with the authorities but that would indicate their lack of kn...

Paresh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT161Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,95,469/- confirmed by the Joint Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order impugned before us.2. The applicants manufactured a substance with the trade name "NIRSOL SCM". From time to time they claimed the classification under sub-heading 3809.00. In evidence is the approved classification list effective from 1-4-1994. This classification was in vogue for many years. On one occasion the sample of this substance was got tested and approval made on the following finding of the Chemical Examiner : "The sample is a mixture of organic and inorganic chemicals in the form of yellow coloured liquid." 3. The practice of filing classification lists were changed into that of filing of declarations with effect from May 1995, consequent to the amendment to Rule 173B. In the subsequent declarations the same classification was claimed for the same product. The sample was drawn and got tested for the second time...