Mumbai Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Standard Radiators Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT365Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for waiverof deposit of duty totalling Rs. 16.60 lakhs and penalty of equivalent amount.2. The applicant manufactures radiator cores, which are to be incorporated in heaters, which it supplied to manufacturers of air conditioners for motor vehicles. These cores received in them heated water from the car's radiator and by means of a blower arrangement, the air coming into the engine is passed through the honeycomb structure of the core, resulting in its being heated. This air is circulated to heat the interior of the motor vehicle. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the claim made by the manufacturer for classification of these goods under Heading 8419 of the Tariff as heat exchangers. He has held the goods rightly classifiable under Heading 8415.00 as parts of air conditioners.3. Prima facie there are two strong objections to the Commissioner's view. Firstly, the Explanatory Notes to the Heading 8415 of the Harmoni...
Viral Filaments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC202
1. Duty totalling Rs. 25.25 lakhs approx. has been demanded from the assessee in the two orders impugned in these appeals in which these stay application have been filed. Penalty totalling Rs. 5.20 lakes have also been imposed. The Commissioner finds that the assessee was not entitled to pay duty on the final product that it manufactured when they were exempted unconditionally by a notification. Therefore its act of taking credit on the inputs used in the manufacture was contrary to law.Everest Converters v. CCE, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 91 which has been followed in number of decisions, the Tribunal had held that notwithstanding the fact that the goods were exempted, the manufacturer was entitled to pay duty on them if he wish to and that he could then take Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the finished products. Since the issue is prima facie covered by this decision, we waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed and stay their recovery.3. W...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus., Vs. Acrow India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT587Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal by the Commissioner is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that cost of shuttering that was manufactured at the behest of the respondent and supplied to Hindustan Construction Corporation Ltd. is not to be included in the telescopic travelling tunnel frame that it undertook and manufactured for Hindustan Construction Corporation Ltd. 2. Neither side was unable to tell us exactly what the nature of the finished goods was or what were the bought out items which were in dispute. The documents that we have seen, right from the show cause notice till the appeal filed before us are silent on this aspect and the Departmental Representative therefore expresses helplessness.Counsel for the respondent made some ineffectual attempt to tell us what the goods were but finally professed ignorance. The show cause notice only alleges failure to determine correct duty and paid and does not indicate any facts. In the reply filed by the assessee to this notice, it had e...
Birla Vxl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT614Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Birla VXL Ltd., the appellant imported in Porbander a consignment consisting of 9784 tons of screened metallurgical coke in bulk. The coke was supplied by the Chinese Metallurgical Import and Export Corporation. Shanxi in the Peoples Republic of China. The purchase order dated 9-12-91 which is exported by the buyer provided for supply of coke from 25 mm to 50 mm screened size and laid down specification for the carbon sulphur and other content of the coke. Clause 13 laid down parameters with regard to the size. It provided "overall range of size outside 25-50 mm not to exceed 17.5% as mentioned above." Clause 7(2) provided for determination of size. It provided that the buyer and seller must agree to nominate inspection agent "as per mutually agreed discharge".2. After arrival of the goods in May, 1992 it is stated that they were subjected to examination for determining the size of the particulars by Representative of SGS India Pvt. Ltd., well-known survey agency. It is stated that...
Nachmo Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure to deposit the amount that has been ordered.3. Following a writ petition to the Gujarat High Court, the appellant had filed a application before the Commissioner (Appeals) for modification of the stay order. The Commissioner has dismissed the application on the ground that entertaining such an application would amount to review of his order was not permitted.4. This is not the correct position in law. The stay order passed by the Commissioner as like such orders passed by the Tribunal and Courts are an interim order which does not finally settle the issue. If the Commissioner were of the view that the modification application otherwise should have been entertained, he should not have declined to consider it solely on this ground. In any event, the Commissioner after dismissing the modification application should have given the applicant before him, a reasonable time within whi...
Time Packaging Limited, Tarapur, Dist. Thane Vs. Maharashtra Engineeri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR531; [2002(94)FLR585]; (2002)IIILLJ549Bom; 2002(2)MhLj849
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on August 28, 2001 in Civil Application No. 1383 of 2001. The said application was filed by the appellant herein to recall the orders dated January 31, 2001 and July 11, 2000 passed in the proceedings.2. The respondent-Union had initiated proceedings before the III Labour Court, Maharashtra State, Thane, in Reference (IDA) No. 185 of 1998 against termination of services of ten employees. The Labour Court, by part I Award, dated December 8, 1999, partly allowed the reference. It rejected the prayer made by four employees for reinstatement but granted reinstatement to six employees.3. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant-petitioner approached this Court. On April 3, 2000, petition was admitted and Rule was issued. On July 11, 2000, stay was granted. The matter is pending for final hearing. Liberty, however, was granted to the concerned workmen or the union to make an application unde...
Chairman, M.S.E.B. and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Vidhyut Mandal and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR358; [2002(95)FLR1075]; 2002(3)MhLj393
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.3. By the impugned order dated 14th June 2001, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, the learned Trial Judge has, while disposing of the preliminary issue rejected the challenge by the Applicants to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The first respondent is a registered Trade Union. The substance of the grievance of the respondents is that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board has divided its establishment for the purposes of administration into various Divisions, Zones and Circles. Accordingly, it is averred that rules for the transfer of employees division wise and circle wise have been framed. The case of the respondents then is that according to the established rules and conventions which are being followed scrupulously by the MSEB, Class IV employees are not li...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sukhdev S/O Bapurao Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1972; 2002(4)MhLj843
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Shri V. N. Upadhye for the appellant and learned Advocate Mrs. Mane holding for learned Advocate Shri V. D. Salunke for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Respondent No. 6 is served but is absent.2. Admit.With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.3. This First Appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order dt. 22-6-2000 passed by Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed. In brief the facts giving rise to this First Appeal are as under :The accident took place on 16-1-1998. Deceased Babasaheb @ Maruti Sukhdev Shinde was pillion rider. Sitaram s/o Vishwanath Salunke was driving motor cycle bearing No. MH-23-A-5336. It appears that Driver lost the control over the motor cycle and accident occurred. Both of them fell on the ground. Deceased Babasaheb sustained multiple injuries. Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who are original claimants in M.A.C. Petition No....
Rajlaxmi Raghavan Iyengar and ors. Vs. Usha Rangraj Iyengar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR83; 2002(3)BomCR509
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. This appeal arises from the order passed on 22-2-2001 in Short Cause Suit No. 6979 of 1999 by the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay decreeing the suit filed by the respondent against the appellants purportedly under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and perusal of the record the only point which arises for consideration in the matter is whether merely because the defendants fail to file written statement, is the trial Court to presume that the pleadings in the plaint are admitted and, therefore, the trial Court can decree the suit under Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. without passing appropriate judgment.4. Facts in brief relevant for decision are that inspite of the repeated opportunities having been afforded to the appellants, written statement was not filed by the appellants in the civil suit filed by the respondent for injunction to restrain the appellants from distu...
Suresh Navnitlal Shah, Vs. Hindustan Spg. and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR783; 2002(3)BomCR571; [2002(94)FLR560]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court dated 15th December, 1998 declaring that the petitioner is not an 'employee' under the provisions of section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as '1946 Act').2. A few facts giving rise to the present petitioner are as under:The petitioner joined the services on 24th March, 1968 in the erstwhile Crown Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited as Departmental Assistant. In the year 1972-73, the name of the Company was changed to the present name, namely, Hindustan Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Limited which is the first respondent herein. The service conditions of the employees continued as before and the petitioner continued to work as a Departmental Assistant. On 10th May, 1991, the services of the petitioner were terminated without assigning any reasons to him. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint under Item 1(b) and (f) and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »