Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN418(Bom)

Shah, J.In these two writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who are Associations of tax practitioners, Chartered Accountants and architects challenge the constitutional validity of section 116 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. The Act envisages service tax at the rate of 5 per cent of the value of taxable service provided to any person by the person responsible for collecting service tax. The persons providing service are liable to recover tax and pay the same to the Central Government under section 68 of the Act. The service tax was introduced by the Finance Act, 1994. The ambit of the Act was widened by the Finance Act, 1998 substituting section 66 of the Act thereby including service provided by the architects and practising chartered accountants, etc.2. The challenge to the vires of the Act is on the grounds of lack of legislative competence and violation of rights under articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Union of India seeks to sustai...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Amichand Shantilal and Co.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These four appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of the same order and are therefore disposed of together vide this single order. These appeals were argued by Shri AK Jain for the Revenue. The respondents were represented by Shri ML Grover Advocate and Shri HR Shetty Advocate.2. M/s. Amichand Shantilal and Co. had imported 49.5 MTS of HDPE. They sold the goods on high sea sale basis to M/s. Relaxo Plastic through one Shri Rajesh Desai a broker. Shri Rajesh Damani was a partner of M/s. Amichand Shantilal & Co. The CHA filed the bills of entry and produced certain advance licences for clearance of the goods without payment of duty. However, before the goods were so cleared, the Customs found out that M/s. Relaxo Plastics was a non existent company and that the licences were forged. M/s. Amichand Shantilal & Co., the original importers, thereafter requested for clearance of the goods on payment of duty. At the material time the goods were permissible on OGL. The Department he...

Annasaheb Rajaram Nagane and anr. Vs. Rajaram Maruti Nagane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom303; 2001(3)MhLj53

V.C. Daga, J.1. The crucial question for consideration is : Whether there is bar of limitation to the application being sent to the Collector in order that he may carry out direction given in a decree in the form set out in Order 20, Rule 18(1) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908?FACTUAL MATRIX2. Factual matrix lies in narrow compass and it is this :The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and decree holders in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1975 filed by them on 13th October 1975, for partition and separate possession of movable and immovable properties inter alia including the agricultural lands being revised survey Nos. 154/2 and 155/2 situated at Baaj, Taluka Jat, District Sangli. The said suit came to be decreed on 27th November and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jat declared that the petitioners were entitled to 8/55th share in the suit property inasmuch as they were entitled to separate possession of the suit lands. It was further directed that the petitioner would be entitled to ...

Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs. Vasant Ganu Patekar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR738; [2001(89)FLR247]; (2001)ILLJ1358Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, in its anxiety to make the unit economically viable, introduced on October 12, 1997 a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Under the scheme the employees were given one month's period from October 20, 1997 to November 19, 1997 to opt for voluntary retirement and to get the benefits under the scheme. The Respondent employee who was employed as a Machine Operator applied for VRS benefits on November 17, 1997. The Petitioner-Company communicated its acceptance of his application under the Scheme and to relieve him from employment as per the Schedule of the Scheme i.e., by March 31, 1998. It appears that the Respondent workman had a second thought and addressed a letter on January 19, 1998 expressing his desire to withdraw his earlier application under the Scheme. There was no response from the Petitioner-Company to this letter therefore he addressed a second letter on February 9, 1998 which was replied by the Petitioner- Company on February 24, 1998 no...

Kunwar Prasad Vs. Creative Garments and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR548; 2001(3)BomCR613; [2001(89)FLR556]; (2002)IVLLJ920Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated January 16, 1999 passed by the 12th Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 653 of 1993 made by the State Government for adjudication of an Industrial Dispute raised by the Petitioner for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from June 15, 1992. The Labour Court has rejected the reference by the impugned Award.2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was in employment of the Respondent Company as a Pressman from 1989. On and from June 15, 1992 he was not allowed to join his duties and was orally told that his services were no more required. No orders in writing were passed. It appears that on August 13, 1992 the Petitioner approached through its Union the respondent Company for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. There was no reply to the said letter sent by the Union. The Petitioner therefore approached the Commissioner of Labour for intervention...

Usha Suryakant Guram Vs. Lyka Labs Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR430; 2001(4)BomCR297; [2001(91)FLR1227]; (2002)IVLLJ971Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner was in employment of the Respondent company in its Packing Department from 1977. She was dismissed from employment by an Order dated February 3, 1992. Being aggrieved by the Order of dismissal, she raised an Industrial Dispute challenging the legality and validity of the Order of dismissal and she prayed for relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Her Industrial Dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Both the parties filed their pleadings and documents and adduced their evidence before the Labour Court.2. It appears from the pleadings that the Petitioner had not challenged the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry held in the charges levelled against her by the Respondent company. The Labour Court therefore examined the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and held against the Petitioner that the findings of the enquiry officer ...

Chhotalal Gajanan Khole Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR291; 2001(4)BomCR291

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, a Municipal servant, is aggrieved by an order dated 2-4-1997 of his reversion from the post of Ward Inspector as a Clerk by way of punishment. The petitioner has also given challenge to the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order.2. The petitioner was confirmed as Ward Inspector on 1-4-1984. A chargesheet was served on him on 13-4-1992 whereby a charge of gross negligence and gross misconduct was levelled against him. The statement of allegations reflects that he did not complete the work of inspection of properties required under section 21 of the B.M.C. Act, before November 1989 as per procedure. It was alleged that there were 350 properties which were not inspected whereby the caused to the Corporation loss of revenue to the tune of Rs. 93,710/-. These two charges are reproduced herein below :---1. 'That while working as Ward Inspector in P/South Ward, you were required to complete the wor...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Vinod Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Asst. Collector rejected the claim for refund claimed by Vinod Silk Mills, the respondent to this appeal, of the duty paid in excess on the polyester yarn imported by it, on the ground that it could not show, as required by the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act, that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. Disposing of the appeal against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the polyster yarn imported by the claimant for the refund was subjected to texturing and heat setting. Therefore, he applied the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides vs. UOI 1992 (57) ELT 201 and allowed the claim.2. The ground in the department's appeal, that the judgement of the Bombay High Court has been appealed to the Supreme Court is itself insufficient to warrant interference. However, the Supreme Court in its judgement reported in 2000 (116) ELT 40 has set aside the judgement of the Bombay High Court and held that the principle embo...

Surya Rubbers (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT620Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question before the Commissioner (Appeal) was whether the goods, described as "precured tread rubber" manufactured by the appellant was entitled to the benefit of entry 40.3 in the Table to the notification 8/96 and corresponding entries in its successor notifications. The entry exempted inter alia tread rubber for duty in excess of 15% While the Asst. Commissioner has denied the benefit of notification on the ground that it is only the goods specified in heading 40.06 of the Tariff that are entitled to the exemption, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to comply with his order requiring deposit of the entire duty.2. The same Commissioner in his earlier order no. 163/165/BDR/99 dated 19.7.99 has extended the benefit of the notification to the same goods manufactured by the appellant. In these circumstances, his dismissal of the appeal for failure to deposit the entire duty was wrong.3. Accordingly, we set aside the order, allow the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. S. Kumar and Co. and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has dropped the proposal in the show cause notice demanding duty from Karnataka Ginning & Pressing Factory, a processor of textile fabrics, proposing confiscation of the fabrics seized from the processor as well as from four other persons, and proposing penalty on sixty other persons. We are concerned in these appeals with these sixty respondents.2. The Commissioner has relied upon the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI 1995 (80) ELT 507 for holding that penalty was not imposable. The ground for challenging her acceptance of this judgement suggests that High Court has not taken note of some provisions of law. Such an argument should appropriately be raised before the Supreme Court, to which we understand an appeal has been filed against the High Court's order. This Tribunal can by no means entertain such a claim. Nor could the Commissioner (appeals) refuse to ignore the judgement on th...