Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

G. Claridge and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a manufacture of egg trays made of paper pulp. It sells goods either from its factory at Pune for from its five sales depots located at Mumbai, Hyderabad, Gudiwada, Eorde and Coimbatore. At the relevant time, it sold egg trays from the factory at Rs.105.02 and Rs. 103.91 for different periods and at Rs.91 Rs.90.52 all being for 140 pieces from it s four depots, excluding the one at Mumbai.It is stated that the appellant sold the goods from this depot at the same price as is sold them from the factory. Notice issued to the appellant proposed to apply to the sales from these four depots the price at which it sod them form the factory. The Asst. Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals) confirmed the proposal in the notice. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant is hat these four depots were set up to cater to the demand in the four southern states. The appellant had necessarily to sell these goods at a ...

Milton Plastic Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT399Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Milton Plastics Ltd. (MPL) and M/s. Milton Plastics Industries are sister concerns and related persons in terms of Sec. 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. M/s. MPI manufactured thermo flasks and discharged the burden of duty on prices at which the goods were sold by M/s. MPI. M/s. MPL effected clearances at their depot gate as well as at the gate of their Clearing and Forwarding Agents. Duty was to be calculated on the price prevailing at different places. The quantum of duty would be higher where the goods were cleared from the premises of C & F Agents. During the search of the office of M/s. MPI a document was found being a memo from M/s. MPL to M/s. MPI pointing out that during the period April, 1996 to August, 1997, M/s. MPI had short paid duty of Rs. 12,77,773.82. This authenticity of this document is accepted by both M/s. MPI and M/s. MPL. As to why the differential duty was not paid was explained by the officers of MPI. Show cause notice dated 14-12-1999 was issued ...

Anil Try Ambakarao Kokil Vs. Municipal Council, Nanded and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj762

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This writ petition, filed in the public interest, has assailed the resolutions passed by the Nanded Municipal Council allotting plots of land to respondent No. 3 Pragati Mahila Mandal, respondent No. 4 Sai Sevabhavi Trust, shops granted on lease in the buildings constructed by the Municipal Council to respondent No. 4 -- Sai Sevabhavi Trust, respondent No. 5 -- Karmaveer Sahebrao Baradkar Pratishthan respondent No. 6 Daily Lokprerana, respondent No. 7 - New Jaibharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, and respondent No. 13 Dattatray Pandurang Savant. The Municipal Council had also passed a resolution for grant of donation of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent No. 4 which is also sought to be challenged in this petition.2. The petitioner, who was journalist at the relevant time, had also impleaded Shri Shankarrao Bhaurao Chavan, in his capacity as the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra (respondent No. 17), Shri Ashok Shankarrao Chavan, the then sitting Member of...

D.K. Goel Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Kamal Sujit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR52

K.S. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with the prayer that complaint No. 1038/98 pending against him before a Metropolitan Magistrate be quashed and order dated 4th June, 2001 passed in Crl. R. No. 6/2001 by an Addl. Sessions Judge be set aside.2. Copy of criminal complaint which is sought to be quashed, is placed at pages 69 to 74 on the file. In this complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the' Act') by the respondent herein, it is, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner herein towards part payment of his liability issued cheque No. 230284 dated 16th December, 1998 for an amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs drawn on Canara Bank, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On presentation of the cheque by the respondent through Punjab National Bank, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi on 17th December, 1997 for realisation of money, same was returned back by the said branch of Canara Bank on 18th December, 1997 with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. ...

All India Envelope Workers Union Vs. Envelope Manufacturers Associatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR946]; (2002)IVLLJ928Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the First Respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for final hearing.2. The Industrial Court has dismissed a complaint, being Complaint ULP No. 59 of 1999 filed under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the 'MRTU & PULP Act, 1971'), by its impugned order dated October 12, 2000 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The complaint arises out of a settlement entered into between the parties on February 8, 1996. Under Clause (1) of the settlement which is annexed at Exh. A to the Petition, the workmen of the member employers of the First Respondent were to be paid an ad hoc rise on the existing wages as on December 31, 1993 with stipulated percentage increases during the period 1994 to 1998. The arrears for the year 1994 were to be paid on or before March 31, 1996. Similarly, dates were prescribed for the payment of...

Chairman, Jawahar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR612; 2001(4)BomCR642

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These two First Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. First Appeal No. 159 of 1991 challenges the award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 37 of 1984 dated 18th October, 1989 whereby challenging the amount enhanced in the said reference to be not adequate. The State of Maharashtra has also filed First Appeal No. 546 of 1991 against the same award passed by the Reference Court on 18th October, 1989 challenging the enhancement granted as well as the amount computed at the rate of 12% p.a. under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the period mentioned in the said Order. Similarly, the State of Maharashtra has also challenged the interest awarded at the rate of 9% p.a. as per section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the period involved in the said order as well as grant of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on solatium and the amount at the rate of 12% p.a. as per section 23(1-A) of the La...

J.P. Electronics Pte. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(133)ELT32(Bom)

1. Heard both sides by consent finally.2. A small but subtle question under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 has arisen in this Writ Petition for our consideration, to the effect that when an exporter has sent goods from a foreign country, and an importer does not pay for the goods and abandons them, then whether the exporter continues to be the owner of the goods, and if he is entitled to ask for re-export thereof.3. The facts involved in the dispute in a nutshell are thus :-The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Laws of Singapore and are, inter alia, exporters of various types of electronic goods all over the world. The petition is moved through the said company's constituted attorney in this Court.Respondent No. 1 is Union of India and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the authorities under the Customs Act. Respondent No. 5 is the Officer of Mumbai Port Trusts and exercises his powers under the jurisdiction under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.It is the case of th...

Polycon Paper Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR210; (2002)176CTR(Bom)205

V.C. Daga, J.INTRODUCTION1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involves a question about interpretation and applicability of definition of 'apparent consideration' given under Section 269UA(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for the purposes of paying the amount to the vendor, when the order for purchase of a property, under Chapter XX-C under Section 269UD of the Act is made.2. The Appropriate Authority, while giving order for purchase of the property has determined the amount payable for such purchase by applying provisions of Section 269UA(b). In doing so, from the apparent consideration stated in the agreement of sale, the sum payable on stamp duty by the purchaser under the agreement has been deducted. The sole grievance has been made regarding deduction made on account of stamp duty payable by the vendor, as cost of conveyance, while calculating the apparent consideration for the purposes of arriving at payment to be made under Sectio...

J.P. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(77)ECC318

ORDER1. Heard both sides by consent finally. 2. A small but subtle question under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 has arisen in this Writ Petition for our consideration, to the affect that when an exporter has sent goods from a foreign country, and an importer does not pay for the goods and abandons them, then whether the exporter continues to be the owner of the goods, and if he is entitled to ask for re-export thereof. 3.The facts involved in the dispute in a nutshell are thus: The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Laws of Singapore and are, inter alia, exporters of various types of electronic goods all over the world. The petition is moved through the said company's constituted attorney in this Court. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the authorities under the Customs Act. Respondent No. 5 is the officer of Mumbai Port Trusts and exercises his powers under the jurisdiction under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1960. It is the c...

Dutron Plastics Vs. Ccex, Boroda

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The two contention of the counsel for the applicant are that in his earlier order passed on appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside a part of the order of the Asst. Commissioner denying part of the refund claimed by the manufacture. Subsequently he has passed another order, accepting the department's appeal against the same order of the Asst. Commissioner, relating to that part of the refund which the Asst. Commission allowed, and expressing a view directly contrary to the view expressed earlier.He also contends that the issue in question is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Thermon Heat Tracers Ltd. vs. CCE (appeal E/1403/96 and the order of the Madras High Court in Addison & Co. vs. CCE 2001 (129) ELT 44.2. This appeal has thrown up an important and recurring question as to the remedies available to the parties in a situation when the Commissioner (Appeals) ...