Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Shrikant Golvankar Vs. Rockey Dominick Gulas and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom287; 2001(3)ALLMR703; 2001(4)BomCR460; (2001)2BOMLR992; 2001(3)MhLj605

R. M. Lodha, J.1. The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for hearing prima facie formed opinion that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in H. Shiva Rao and another v. Cecilia Pereira and others, the petitioner-tenant is entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) which was made applicable to the village Gokhivare where the premises were situated during the pendency of appeal though at the time the suit was filed and was decreed by the Trial Court, the Bombay Rent Act was not applicable. The learned Single Judge in para 5 of the reference order observed thus :'5. Prima facie, I am of the view that considering the judgment, of the Apex Court reported in : AIR1987SC248 (cited supra), in the present case, the petitioner-tenant is entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act even though the said provisions, were made applicable to village Gokhi...

Hemant M. Nabar and ors. Vs. M/S. Farohar and Co. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR136; (2001)3BOMLR518

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Judgment Debtors for setting aside the insolvency Notice dated 30th August. 1999, taken out by the Decree Holder. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Notice of Motion are that in Appeal No. 636 of 1991 the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26th June. 1992 passed a consent decree, which according to the Decree Holder is a decree for payment of money. The Decree Holder took out an Insolvency Notice dated 30th August, 1999 and served it on the judgment Debtor on 20th September, 1999. The Notice was taken out under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. On being served with that notice the Judgment Debtor has taken out this Notice of Motion for, setting aside that Insolvency Notice on various grounds including the ground that the decree pursuant to which this Insolvency Notice has been taken out is not enforceable, as the decree holder has not obtained a leave of the C...

Jhunka-bhakar Kendrachalak Sanghatna and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR164; 2002(1)BomCR246; (2002)1BOMLR560; 2002(1)MhLj89

B.P. Singh, C.J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have impugned Government Resolution dated 27th June 2000, whereby the Zhunka Bhakar scheme implemented in the State since 1st May, 1995 wasclosed down completely, taking into consideration the working of the scheme which appears to have failed to achieve its objective. The petitioners have also impugned another Government Resolution of the same date, whereby the Government issued instructions regarding taking possession of the Zhunka Bhakar Centres after closure of the scheme. Writ petition (Lodging ) No. 1286 of 2000 was filed on 19th June 2000 even before the impugned Government Resolution dated 27th June 2000 was issued, since the petitioners had come to know from press reports etc, that the Government was contemplating closure of the scheme. Subsequently the petitioners sought leave to amend the writ petition and challenged the aforesaid Government Resolution after the closure of the scheme and the instructions is...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. B.R. Balakrishnan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]251ITR158(Bom)

1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. In a large number of matters, this court finds orders being passed perfunctorily by the Department only with the idea of effecting recovery before March 31, though such orders could have been passed earlier in detail and after recording proper reasons. This is one of those cases.3. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on February 5, 2001, under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1998-99 (previous year ending on March 31, 1998). Pursuant to the said assessment order, a notice of demand of Rs. 12.93 crores including interest was issued on February 5, 2001, under Section 156 of the Act. On receipt of the notice of demand, the assessee filed a stay petition on February 23, 2001, before the Assessing Officer and requested him to stay the demand in order to enable the petitioner-assessee to file an appeal with the Commissioner of Income-tax. The stay petition was rejected by the Assessing O...

Century Enka Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT494Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of plastic pallets, claiming clearance without producing a licence. The department was of the view that these plastic pallets were consumer goods and hence required an import licence. The importer having waived written notice was heard by the Assistant Commissioner, who passed orders holding the goods to be consumer goods which required an import licence. This order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant is before this Tribunal.2. The pallets in question are of types used to convey the goods. They have slots in them to accommodate the prongs of a forklift to facilitate easy and convenient lifting and transport of packages loaded on them. The import policy was recast in 1.4.1996 so as to align it to the Customs tariff which is in turn aligned with the Harmonised System of Nomenclature of the Customs Corporation Counsel, now known as the World Customs Organisation. The ITC HS Classification published by the licensing au...

M/S. Crown Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs(G),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT453Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing Shri S.R. Narayanan, Consultant for the applicants and Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue, we find that in view of the availability of a Larger Bench judgement on this issue, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done.2. The Commissioner of Customs(G) vide his order dated 13.11.2000 revoked the CHA licence of M/s. Crown Shipping Agency in terms of Regulation 21(1) of the CHA Licensing Regulations 1984. The Tribunal set aside this order vide final order No.C-II/1-3/WZB/2000 dated 1.1.01. In doing so, the Tribunal observed that the Regulation 21(1) enabled the Commissioner to suspend the licence but not to revoke it.Taking this as a direction, the Commissioner in his order dated 9.2.2001 now impugned before us suspended the CHA licence. Hence, the present appeal.3. One of the grounds in which the earlier appeal was allowed was that an opportunity to hear the CHA was not granted. The earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Verma & Sons(11...

K.M. Gandhi and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner, that modvat credit could not be taken on the two invoices issued by the appellant or the traders, and imposing a penalty on it of Rs 2000/-.2. The counsel for the appellant says that the appeal is limited to the penalty imposed on it.The show cause notice proposed penalty on the appellant on the ground that the trader issued the invoices on which modvat credit would be taken by the purchase of the goods without possessing the original or duplicate copy of document or without obtaining prior permission form the authorities. The reason that the Assistant Commissioner advances for the penalty is that the appellant failed to submit to the jurisdictional Superintendent, within seven days from the closure of each month, duplicate copy of the invoices received from the manufacture.This is a ground quite different from the ground urged in the notice.The penalty has thus been im...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. M/S. Siemens Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC486

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri J.M.George, JDR. The respondents were represented by Shri Prakash Shah, advocate.2. 17 Show cause notices were issued to the respondents for recovery of duty amounting to Rs.19,18,630.09. This sum represented the duty leviable on the notional interest on the various advances taken by the respondents from their customers. The Addl. Collector dropped the demand. The jurisdictional Commissioner then caused and application to be made before the Commissioner (Appeals) for review of the order. The Commissioner in his order examined the claim of the assessee that the prices were the same to both the classes of buyers viz. those who had paid the advances and those who had not paid the advances. In his order he narrated certain examples raised before him. He also cited the Tribunal's decision in holding that the national interest was not includible in the assessable value. The present appeal challenges this order.3.In the grounds of appeal, it...

Shri Ritesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs(P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC82

1. The Commissioner of Customs(P), Mumbai in his order issued on 14.2.01 imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Ritesh Kumar Jain on finding that he had purchased smuggled gold from one Shri Mehboob Ali and paid for the same in foreign exchange. Shri Ritesh Kumar Jain has filed an appeal on 22.11.2000 alongwith an application for COD and another application for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty.2. We have heard Shri Advani apeparing alongwith Shri Sachwani advocates on the application and also heard Shri J.M.George for the Revenue. The claim made in the COD is that the applicant did not receive the copy of the order and that he came to know the existence thereof on the receipt of the notice dated 15.9.2000. He, thereafter, wrote to the Asstt.Commissioner claiming non receipt of the order and resultantly the copy of the order was supplied to him on the same date on 4.10.2000. It is claimed that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of the order...

Vikram Ispat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application 2460 is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 70,000/- and the application 2461 is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 30,000/-, imposed on the applicant. The duty in both cases has been paid.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed on the finding of the Assistant Commissioner, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that structures and materials such as steel sheets use in these structures are construction equipment and therefore not capital goods as defined in Rule 57Q. It is the contention of the counsel for the applicant that these goods used as a support for conveyer system of the applicant conveying raw materials and are therefore capital goods. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in New J.K. Cement Works vs CCE 3. The departmental representative says that these goods are nothing other than constructional materials and hence not entitled to modvat credit, as held in Vivek Alloys Limited vs CCE 1998 (98) ELT 156.In New J.K. Cement Works v...