Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Gurunath Vithal Tamse Vs. National Textile Corporation (N.M.)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(93)FLR742]; (2002)IILLJ270Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service.2. The Petitioner worked in the India United Mills since April 9, 1963. The Mill was nationalised and taken over by the Respondent in 1974. The Petitioner was dismissed from service and the dispute between the parties ultimately culminated in an order dated July 7, 1992, passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4898 of 1984 and 840 of 1985 by which the Respondent was directed to pay the back wages to the Petitioner from April 1, 1974 until June 30, 1991 when he attained the age of 60 years. The dispute in the present case arises out of an application filed by the Petitioner before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the payment of gratuity. That application was dismissed by the Controlling Authority by an order dated April 26, 1999. the Controlling Authority held that as a matter of fact, the gratuity amount of Rs. 27,487/- had not been paid to th...

M.S. Joshi and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR129; (2002)104BOMLR12

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has sought permission of the Court to delete Petitioner Nos. 7 to 11. Liberty as prayed for is granted.2. The writ petition which forms the subject matter of these proceedings seeks to impugn an order passed almost 14 years ago on 31st August, 1987 by the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 1987 and six companion appeals under Section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The appellate proceedings before the learned Principal Judge arose out of orders passed by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Municipal Corporation holding that the Petitioners were unauthorised occupants of the tenements which had been allotted to them in Shahu Nagar, Mahim, Mumbai, since upon their ceasing to be in the service of the Municipal Corporation, the original allottees were not entitled to continue in occupation. The Petitioners are heirs of the allottees. The Enquiry Of...

Reliance Industrial Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are appeals by assessee pertaining to asst. yrs. 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. Since issues involved in these appeals are common and the CIT(A) has also given identical findings in all these years, for the sale of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee has raised common grounds relating to rejection of assessee' claim for lease rentals for all these years. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated on 20th Sept., 1988. Its main object was to carry on business of setting up and erecting in India and abroad pipelines for transportation of goods like petrol/petroleum products, water, carbon dioxide and such other products as can be conveniently transported through pipeline. The assessee sold an item of plant and machinery called SCADA system on 30th March, 1993, to M/s Reliance Capital & Finance Trust Limited (hereinafter called RCFTL) for a total consideration of Rs. 8,03,38,800. The assessee therea...

Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)606

Counsels: Arvind Sonde, for the Assessee H. Srinivasulu, for the RevenueIn the ITAT, Mumbai WT Bench J.P. Bengra, Vice-President & S.C. Tiwari, A.M.Order J.P. Bengra, Vice PresidentThese are appeals by assessee pertaining to assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. Since issues involved in these appeals are common and the Commissioner (Appeals) has also given identical findings in all these years, for the sale of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee has raised common grounds relating to rejection of assessee' claim for lease rentals for all these years. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated on 20-9-1988. Its main object was to carry on business of setting up and erecting in India and abroad pipelines for transportation of goods like petrol/petroleum products, water, carbon dioxide and such other products as can be conveniently transported through pipeline. The assessee sold an item of plant and ma...

Silvo Liacal Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applicant requests adjournment on the ground "concerned persons/consultant is out of station".2. Amount of duty involved id Rs. 12,927/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.The issue is whether provisions of Rule 173H would apply to goods received under one brand name and cleared under another.3. Having regard to these facts, issue and the amount involved I decline to admit the appeal....

Sarabhai Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT442Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in pursuance of the Tribunal's order in appeal E/853/99. In that order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the manufacturer and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The question before the Commissioner (Appeals) was whether the inputs on which credit was taken which had been demanded in the notice issued to the appellant had been utilised by it in the manufacture of any finished goods. The appellant claimed before the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) that goods were not utilised by it in the manufacture of medicaments, but were utilised by two other loan-licensees- M/s.Synbiotics Limited and Innosearch Limited, who manufactured the medicaments by utilising the appellant's machinery. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not been considered this claim. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (...

thermon Heat Tracers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT455Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant before us was engaged in the manufacture of heat tracing cables. These cables were initially classified under heading 8516.00 of the tariff on which duty was payable @ 25% ad valorem, disallowing the claim by the manufacturer to classify them under heading 85.40, which carries a lower rate of duty. Consequent upon an appeal filed against this order, the Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, who in de novo adjudication accepted the claim for classification under heading 85.40.2. The manufacture filed a claim of refund of the duty paid b it in excess in the interviewing period. The Assistant Collector found that the refund was to be granted o merits but found that the incidence of duty had been passed on by the manufacture to the buyer of the goods.He therefore ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The manufacture appealed this order to the Collector (Appeals).The claim before the Collector (Appeals) was that altho...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Okasa Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Notice issued to the respondent to this appeal proposed denial of modvat credit on the ground that, whereas gat passes were issued by the manufacturer of the inputs to other person who endorsed them in favour of the respondent, the invoices for sale of the goods were issued by a third party. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and denied the credit. On appeal from that order the Commissioner (Appeals) found nothing irregular in this procedure. He did not agree that the requirement expressed in the order of the Assistant Commissioner that endorsement of the gate passes should have been made by the person who issued the invoices. He therefore allowed the credit. This is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The first ground in the appeal is that by notification 15/94 and 16/94 an endorsed gate pass is acceptable as a valid document only if the endorsement is made on or before 31.3.1994. This ground is not acceptable in the light of the decision ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Enpee Pharma (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is the validity for the purpose of modvat credit of the invoices issued by dealers, who on the date on which they issued them, were not registered, but subsequently registered prior to 31.12.1994. The notice issued to the respondent proposed denial of the credit on the ground that document issued by unregistered dealers were not valid for taking credit in the light of the provisions of notification 21/94. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the contents of the circular No.76/76/94 dated 8.11.1994 which provided that an invoice issued by a registered person to its registration would be acceptable. he said that the Assistant Commissioner's reliance upon the fact that the invoice did not contain all the particulars specified in notification 15/94 and 16/94 was not justified as these were not the allegation in the notice.2. The appeal contends that Board's circular dated 8.11.1994 only permits acceptance of an invoice...

Mrf Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the claim for refund of the service tax paid by the appellant and ordered to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that it has no t been shown as required by Sub-section(2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which is made applicable to the Service Tax in question by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 which levy the tax) that the incidence of the tax claimed as refund has not passed on. On appeal from the order the Commissioner (Appeals) the appeal to be not maintainable by virtue of provisions of Section 116 and 117 of the Finance Act validating with retrospective effect the provisions of 1994 Finance Act requiring service tax will be paid by the users of the transporter. The appeal has become infructuous.3. It is contended in the appeal that writ petitions of various parties one of which U.P. State Sugar Corporation challenging the retrospective effect has been admitted by the Court. The fact of admission of a writ pet...