Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

DolphIn International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Dolphin International Ltd (Dolphin for short), the appellant before us, had asked for and been granted a value based advance licence. It is stated that it transferred the licence, in accordance with law, to M/s Bentoll Chemicals Products Ltd, Mumbai. The latter used it to import goods which it cleared without payment of duty in terms of notification 203/92. Subsequently, a notice was issued to Dolphin and Bentoll Chemicals Products, demanding duty and proposing penalty on the ground that the benefit of notification 203/92 will not be available to the imported goods, for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of.A corrigendum was issued to this notice. The corrigendum alleges that the import was made not by Dolphin but by Bentoll Chemicals Products.It asked both the licencee and the importer to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. The corrigendum referred Bentoll Chemical Products Ltd as "the importer" and amended paragraph 5 of the notice, which then asked "t...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty totalling of Rs 74.80 lakhs. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the electrical wires and cables used in the applicant's factory were not capital goods.2. The reason advanced by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the Assistant Commissioner's order was that the appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd v. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 47, was pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal as reported in 2001 (132) ELT 8. We therefore waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Surat Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the inclusion in the assessable value of the beverages manufactured by the respondent of charges that it pays for hiring plastic crates in which these bottles containing beverages are transported from its factory to the premises of the dealers.2. Dealing with an identical issue for a different period, the Tribunal, while that these disposing of appealE/2300/96 relating to the same manufacturer, has held that these charges were not includible in the value of the beverages. The departmental representative is not able to say why the ratio of that decision should not apply....

Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner impugned in this appeal, demands duty from the appellant on the ground that it wrongly claimed the benefit of notification 203/92 in respect of goods that it imported against an advance licence, for the reason that one of the conditions in the notification, that modvat credit should not be availed of in the manufacture of the exported product, had been contravened.3. It is the contention of the appellant that the advance licence was quantity based licence, not a value based licence, and that goods imported under such a licence would not be entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92. What would apply is notification 204/92, which does not contain any restriction relating to availing modvat credit, if the licence has not been transferred. The photo copy of the licence that it has been produced shows it to be a quantity based licence and the number on it is th...

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Ishani Trading Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Various issues were dealt with by the Commissioner in the order impugned before us by the department. The appeal however is only on one ground. That is that the Commissioner was not right in holding that the import that the respondent made was within the period permitted by the import policy and the import licence for this period.2. The Commissioner was considering a transferable advance licence, which bore on it the following endorsement of the licensing authority: "The licence was revalidated up to 19.09.93 and endorsement for transferability made on 24.08.93. As per the then prevalent policy licence was valid for six months from the date of endorsement of transferability." 3. The department's case appears to be that the provisions of paragraph 127 (v) of the amended policy, which provides that the licence shall be valid for the balance period of validity or six months whichever is longer provided that no revalidation has been availed, will apply.4. The Commissioner is right when...

Maha Gujarat Iron and Steel Co. Vs. C.C. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT699Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is engaged in re-rolling flat steel products and has for this purpose in its factory three rolling mills. Its liability to duty was determined by the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, taking into account the six parameters prescribed for this purpose in the Rules. By its letter dated 31-3-1998 it signified to the Assistant Commissioner its intention to reduce one of these factors, the distance of pinion stand, in its last rolling stand, requesting corresponding reduction in the capacity. The Commissioner found that as a result of its annual capacity would be reduced to 22102 tonnes. Rule 5 of the rules provides that where the capacity determined under Rule 3 falls below the actual quantity of production in 1996-97 the capacity shall be based on that production.The appellant's production in 19...

M.A. Panshikar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR318; (2001)4BOMLR662

B.P. Singh, C.J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside three Notifications issued by the Urban Development Department of Respondent No. 1, the State of Maharashtra, all dated 4th October, 1999. The Notifications have been annexed to the Writ Petition as Exhibit 'Q' (Colly) (hereinafter referred to as 'the first, second and third Notifications'). By the first Notification, the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. 1966 ('M.R.T.P. Act', for short), has sanctioned the Draft Development Plan submitted by Respondent No. 2, Thane Municipal Corporation, subject to certain modifications. The State Government, by the impugned Notification, has not granted sanction to the entire Draft Development Plan as submitted by Respondent No. 2- Corporation, because it was of the view that some modifications in the said plan are necessary, which were of substantial nat...

Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Suryabhan Popat Londhe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)1BOMLR587; 2002(1)MhLj946

P.V. Kakade, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging the Award dated 22nd April, 1997, passed by the President of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby the order of dismissal of the respondent from service is set aside and it is further directed that the respondent-workman should be reinstated with continuity of past service with full back wages. 2.1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None present for the respondent. It may also be noted that none was present for the respondent on the last occasion also when the matter came up for hearing on 3rd February, 2000. 3. The facts involved in the dispute, in brief, are thus :-- The respondent-workman Shri Londhe joined the services of the petitioners - Bombay Port Trust on 30th July, 1997. At the time of his involvement in the incident i.e. 8th July, 1985, the respondent was working as scavenger and his duty was to clean the assigned area within the docks. The case of the petition...

Wealth Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Rati M. Fyzee

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD548(Mum.)

1. These two appeals filed by the Revenue relate to the asst. yrs.1991-92 and 1992-93.2. The facts giving rise to the appeals may briefly be noticed. The assessee is an individual. He owned house property at Bakhtavar, Opp.Colaba Post Office, Mumbai. In the wealth-tax return filed for the years under appeal the value of the house property was declared at Rs. 43,02,024. The assessee also claimed deduction in respect of a sum of Rs. 40,00,000, which he had received from a tenant, to whom the property was let out on leave and licence basis. While completing the assessments under Section 16(3) of the WT Act, the AO noted that the assessee has also claimed exemption of Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 5(1A) of the Act, in addition to the claim for deduction of the liability in respect of the security deposit. According to him, allowing the liability and also granting the exemption under Section 5(1A) would amount to double deduction. He, therefore, restricted the deduction in respect of the liab...

Yeshaswinee Merchant and ors. Vs. Air India Ltd. and ors. Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)MhLj701

A.P. Shah, J.1. Whether the air hostesses working in Air India have a right to perform flying duties after attaining the age of 50 years is the principal question that falls for consideration in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Air India has about 1000 air hostesses. The cabin crew of Air India comprises of females and males. Air India had initially fixed the retirement age of air hostesses at 30 years with power to the General Manager to extend the retirement age upto 35 years, upon the air hostesses being found medically fit. In 1980-1981 the age of retirement of air hostesses was increased to 35 years and their services could be extended for one year at a time at the sole discretion of the Managing Director until they attained the age of 45 years. In contrast the male cabin crew known as assistant flight pursers, flight pursers and inflight supervisors, were retained in service and continued on flight duties until the age of 58 years. In view of...