Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

National Plastics Vs. Comm. Cen. Ex., Ahmedabad-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of the duty of Rs. 23,500/-, and penalty of Rs. 2000/-, the applicant has deposited Rs. 12,000/- in pursuance of the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. On the facts of this case, I do not think any further deposit is called for and waive deposit of the remaining duty and penalty and stay their recovery ....

Shaikh Mohamad Suleman Noor Mohmad Vs. Sayyed Isaq Sayyed Dadu

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR537; 2002(4)MhLj668

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges rejection of the application for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises by the Trial Court as well as by the Lower Appellate Court by the impugned judgments. 3. The petitioner is the owner of the house No. 5646, situated at Panchpir Chavadi, Ahmednagar. One of the rooms of the said house was let out to the respondent since 1958. The tenancy of the respondent was terminated by the petitioner on 2-9-1982 arid subsequently the application for eviction was filed on three grounds, namely, default in payment of rent; bona fide need of the premises for personal occupation and thirdly, nuisance by respondent. Upon issuance of the notice in relation to arrears of rent, the respondent filed application dated 14-9-1982 for fixation of standard rent. It is to be noted that the rent claimed by the petitioner was Rs. 30/- per month, whereas it was the contention of the respondent in the ap...

Ramesh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR609

A.P. Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The aforesaid sets of cases have been classified in three categories, which raise a common question about the liability of payment of compensation by the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act:CATEGORY IC.As. Nos. 5010, 5051 of 1999, 623 of 1997, 40 of 1986, 5457 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) 20312 of 1997], 5458 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20313 of 1997], 3393-95, 10846-50 of 1996, 5495 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13954 of 2000], 5460 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14855 of 2000], 950-57, 1090 of 1999, 521-23 of 1993, 5461-62 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.Ps. (C) Nos. 15554-55 of 2000], 1249, 1253, 1255, 1254, 1251, 1252 of 1999, 5463 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.P. No. 3938 of 1996] and 6542-45 of 1994.CATEGORY IIC.As. Nos. 5385 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9873 of 2000], 16793-96 of 1996, 229 of 1999, 5386-5410 of 2001 [arising out of S.L.Ps. (C) Nos. 4098-4122 of 2001], 5411-16 of 2001 [arising out ...

Dayanand Education Society and anr. Vs. Bhagwan S/O Babshetty Patil an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR854; (2002)104BOMLR220

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 13th October, 1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal Aurangabad in Appeal No. SRTMU/06/99. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order of termination of his services dated 13.3.1999 has been allowed and the said order has been quashed and set aside and further the respondent No. 1 is held to be entitled to continue to be in service subject to conditions as may be imposed by the University and further subject to condition of passing of NET/SET examination in accordance with the provisions of law. The petitioners have been directed to pay the arrears of the salary of the respondent No. 1 from 16th April, 1999 onwards.3. The petitioner No. 1 is the institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Itruns a Law Co...

Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)840

ORDERBy The BenchThe assessee- company and the revenue have filed cross-appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Central-II, Mumbai. Since both these matters arise out of a single order, therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The assessee had filed an application for admission of 2 additional grounds as under :Before we proceed to consider each of the issues involved, it is essential to consider the admission of additional grounds.'(1) That a sum of Rs. 2,41,89,563 paid by the appellant-company during the assessment year 1995-96 and incurred by the company during assessment year 1994-95 be allowed as accrued liability in assessment year 1994-95.(2) That a sum of Rs. 1,85,00,000 incurred by the appellant-company towards technical know-how be allowed in entirety under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, in the place of the original claim of 1/6th of Rs. 1,85,00,000 under section 35AB.'3. The authorised representative in support of the additional gr...

M/S Vridheshwar Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for early hearing, Revenue involved about Rs.1.88 lakhs. The issue is of refusal of remission of duty on goods destroyed, the duty stands already paid. This is a case of appreciation of evidence in the form of claim for remission of duty etc. the Revenue is nt substantial. There are no valid grounds for early hearing. The application is dismissed....

Devanand M. Mandhyani, Abdul Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications are for waiver f deposit of duty of Rs. 94,54,420.57 by K.J. Vakharia and Company, penalty of Rs. 60 lakhs on it under Rule 173Q and Rs. 10 lakhs on H.K. Vakharia, its partner under Rule 209A. Fine of Rs. 5 lakhs for redemption of plant, land and building of the Company ordered to be confiscated and penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs on K.R. Kadiwala, former employee of the Company and as detailed on various others.2. When the matter was fist heard was found that the facts were not presented to us at all clearly. The matter had been adjourned twice before the hearing was concluded for the reason that paper book was so badly filed. It was difficult to refer to it, documents, were illegible and there was no index, etc. It was adjourned once again for producing the translation of the documents which were in Hindi or Gajarati.3. K.J. Vakharia and Company is a processor textile fabrics. Duty had been demanded from it and penalties imposed on it on the finding of the Commissione...

M/S Electro Printers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant was absent and unrepresented on the last hearing and notice of hearing has been returned undelivered, because the applicant's factory was closed. Therefore, a fresh notice was issued.There is still no one present....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Atul Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Only one restoration appeal has however been field. Therefore, we restore the appeal bearing the first number appeal E/1016/00-Bom....

Royal Radiators, Poona Radiators Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The notice issued to the eight appellants before us proposed that they were each part of "Talab Group" and that there was "mutuality of interest" among them. It therefore proposed to demand duty, by denying the benefit of notification 175/86 that each of them had availed of. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has held that the benefit of the notification was not available, and that proceeded to demand duty from each of these units separately.2. The contention of the common counsel for the appellants is that, since basis for the denial of the notification is that all the goods in question were manufactured by single person, duty could not be demanded from different units. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Fabrics Distributors vs. CCE 1997 (92) ELT 451 and other decisions of the Tribunal which have followed the ratio of this judgment.3. The departmental representative contends that the situation is one in which there was one manufacturer who ...