Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

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...

National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Limited Vs. Shri Mhmd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR712; 2001(4)BomCR498; (2001)3BOMLR210; 2001(4)MhLj724

ORDERR.J. Kochar. J.1. The basic and salient feature of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 1946 is prompt action within the prescribed period by any party who is either affected by any change effected by the other side or any change desired from the opposite party. There is the law of limitation inbuilt in this enactment which governs equally both, the employer and the employees and also 'the representative of employees'. This piece of legislation does not approve of delay or laches in any action, nor does it encourage stale and belated legal action in the Court of law. Wherever desired the Legislature has prescribed for condonation of delay by specific provisions. It is crystal clear from the reading of the whole enactment which is a self contained complete code of Industrial Relations that thereis hardly any scope for judicial legislation in the guise of interpretation of the statute unless the clear language is violated.2. The Petitioner, a state owned sick corporation under the B...

Shri Savji Bhavan Bera and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Great ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom387; 2001(3)BomCR787; (2001)3BOMLR362

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellants, who are the original plaintiffs in a suit instituted before the City Civil Court, impugned in the suit a notice dated 7th March, 1998 issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and an order dated 25th June, 1998, passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Besides praying for a declaration that the notice and the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner are contrary to the law, the appellants sought an injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the notice and the order in or upon the suit premises described as consisting of 'Garage and the so-called open space approximately 680 sq.ft., area, made up of B. M. walls and A.C. sheet roof together with the loft:.2. Briefly stated, the appellants case is that from 25th February, 1988, they are carrying on business as partners in an unregistered firm from the premises in question, which consist of garage No. 1 situated in the precincts of a Plot belonging to ...

Shri Shyam Mangilal Jadhav Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Gre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR549; 2001(3)MhLj737

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as brother of the detenu Kailash Mangiram Jadhav has impugned the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the first Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, 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) (Amendment 1996) (hereafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 12.1.2001, was served on the detenu on 18.1.2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu which prompted the first respondent to pass the impugned order are contained in grounds of detention (Annexure B).A perusal of Annexure B would show that the impugne...

Piem Hotels Limited and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bomb ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom419; 2001(4)ALLMR407; 2001(3)BomCR749; (2001)3BOMLR846

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. We are concerned in this group of three Writ Petitions with the legitimacy of Rules 1.7 and 1.5 of the Water Charges Rules effective from5th April, 1987, enacted by Brihan Mumbai Maha Nagar Palika vide Standing Committee's Resolution No. 2202 of 4.3.1987.2. The 1st petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3565 of 1987 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business inter alia of running and managing hotels in India. The hotel of the 1st Petitioner is 'Hotel President' in Bombay. The 2nd petitioner is a director and a shareholder of the 1st petitioner Company and they are challenging revised Water Charges particularly paragraph 1.7 of the Water Charges Rules on various grounds which we shall refer at the appropriate stage. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2228 of 1987 are also challenging the validity of paragraph 1.7 of the Water Charges Rules. 1987. The 1st petitioner in this Writ Petition is a Company incorporated under t...

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Union of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1006]; (2001)IILLJ1529Bom

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned interim order passed by the Industrial Court under Section 30(2) read with Section 28 and Items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), in the Complaint filed by the Complainant Union, the Respondent herein, challenging the transfer orders passed by the Petitioners transferring and proposing to transfer 20 workmen enlisted with Complaint, on and from September 30, 2000 as averred in the Complaint.2. The Petitioners had strongly opposed the Complaint and denied the allegations of unfair labour practices.3. Both the parties filed their documentary evidence. I may mention here that the Petitioners did clearly understand and proceeded on the basis that the Complaint of unfair labour practices was filed on behalf of 20 workmen named in the Complaint including Ms. Suman Sarswat and Mr. Jain, who are presently contesting the P...

Mohd. Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. Secretary, Department of Petroleum Central ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR199; 2001(3)BomCR306

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Allotment of a retail outlet by the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of respondent No. 4 is in issue in this petition filed and argued by the party in person who was also one of the applicants for the said dealership. Before we proceed to deal with the facts, it would be necessary to mention that the petitioner being party in person, his pleadings have been sketchy all along and we had made attempts to consider the pleadings as set out not only in the petition memo, but the subsequent affidavit, additional affidavits and written submissions, etc. It further needs to be mentioned that in support of these pleadings, the petitioner has brought on record necessary documents and copies of all these affidavits, and written submissions along with annexures thereto were served on the respective parties from time to time. The factual matrix leading to this petition is as under :2. The Indian Oil Corporation released an advertisement in some of the local newspapers on 2-4-1...

Mangtani Exports (India) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1010Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant tendered for export at Nhava Sheva port six consignments of fabrics which it had purchased from their manufacturer and others. The exported fabric were declared to consist, in the case of four consignments, of polyester filament yarn and in the case of other two, of polyester staple fabric and viscose staple fabric. The percentage of each of these yarns was indicated. Test of samples of the consignments showed a variation in the presence of these yarn, showing a lesser quantity of polyester filament yearn or polyester synthetic fibre. The variation between the declared quantity and the ascertaining quantity was 2.4% to 7%. Oral notice was communicated to the appellant proposing confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Act and penalty under Section 114. In the order impugned before me, the Commissioner has found a contravention of rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules 1993 rendering the goods liable to penalty under Section 11(5) of the Foreign Trade (Develop...

Centaur Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Dy. Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated against the applicant on the three notices on the ground that since the full quantity of spent catalyst which it had sent to the job worker for restoration had not been received back, it could not take back the entire deposit at 10% of the value of the job worker as the rules then in force required. The department appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Dy. Commissioner but has given no further directions. The net result therefore is that there is no order in force today. The notice remains, pending adjudication.The question of any duty will not arise....

M/S. Air India Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC84

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty of rupees five lakhs imposed on the applicants.2. The applicants are a public sector corporation and have produced the required clearance from the Committee of Secretaries.3. Certain goods were imported by the appellants and were warehoused in terms of section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 61 of the Act prescribed the period for which the imported goods may be warehoused and gave the permission to the executive officer to extend the time.Section 72 of the Act provides for demand of duty on the goods in the case of which the warehousing period has expired and also provides for interest to be collected as prescribed under section 61(2) of the Act.This section also provides for payment of penalties. Since the section does not make for adjudication, it would appear that in thi...