Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments
Jai Corp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT208Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 29.43 lakhs and equal penalty.2. The applicant uniformly charges customers 2% of the invoice price.This is stated to be interest for delayed payment i.e. payment for the goods made beyond any day after the date of invoice. It is contended that part of the interest so collected is refunded in proportion to the date of duty. For example if the payment is made two days after the date of invoice interest to the extent of 33 days is returned.3. Notice issued to the applicant proposed to add the interest to the assessable value of the goods on the ground that it was part of the consideration for the goods. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has not accepted the claim made by the applicant that the amount of interest had refunded in appropriate cases. She finds that there has not been sufficient evidence to show return of the amount in all cases.4. The contention of the applicant on merits is that the assessable value would be t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Powerica Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT87Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by Revenue was argued by Shri Parulekar. The respondents were represented by V.S. Sejpal, Advocate, The respondents manufactured Diesel Generating Sets. On a visit, it was found that certain sets apparently in fully manufactured condition, had not been entered in the RG-1 register. These goods were confiscated but were allowed redemption on payment of fine. A penalty was also imposed on the assessees. Duty paid at the time of provisional release of the goods was confirmed.2. The assessees filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) referring to existing orders as reproduced in a private publication, held that in a number of commodities, "RG1 stage" would reach only after quality control inspection and testing. Accepting the assessees claim that these goods were still to undergo the test, he ruled that in the case of these machines, time for the entry in the register has yet not come.Against this order, the present appeal has been filed.3. Reliance is placed on Tribunal'...
Tag this Judgment!Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT537Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Crompton Greaves, the appellant before us is engaged in the manufacture of electric motor and power driven pumps. It utilises in the manufacture of power driven pumps some part of the electric motor that it makes, the rest of the electric motors are sold as such. The appellant imports wire rods of copper and after furnishing intimation required, sent the rods to job worker in terms of Rule 57F(4). The job worker drew the rods into winding wire and returned the winding wire to the appellant. These winding wires were sent by it to another job worker under Rule 57F(4) for use in the manufacture of wound status.Wound status on it received from the factory are utilised in the manufacture of electric motor which we have noted, which are either cleared on payment of duty or utilised in the factory in the manufacture of pumps. Part of these pumps are cleared on payment of duty; some variety primarily intended to handling water which are specified in heading 84.13 appearing at the nil rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC327Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal has been filed against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal 334/2001 dated 9-7-2001 confirming Order-in-Original passed by the Asst. Commissioner. In the Order-in-original, the Asst. Commissioner denied the benefit of exemption claiming under notification 4/97 as amended from time to time. He confirmed the duty of Rs. 7,22,65,367/-and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs under Rule 173RQ of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellant has three separate units, distinctly registered with the excise department situated at (a) Naroda near Ahmedabad in Gujarat (b) Hazira near Surat in Gujarat; and (c) Patalganga near Mumbai in Maharash-tra. The appellant manufactured Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) falling under Chapter Heading 5402.42. Naroda unit and unit of appellant does not manufacture and it does not have the facilities (including plant and equipment) to manufacture such POY or single yarn falling under Chapter sub-heading 5402.42. The...
Tag this Judgment!Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT607Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the stay of recovery of duties confirmed and penalty levied, it appears that the appeal itself can be taken up for disposal.2. Show Cause Notice dated 17-5-2000 was issued from the Office of Superintendent, Central Excise Range VI-Taleja, Mumbai VII Commissioner- ate, to the applicants, demanding duty of Rs. 49,87,449/-. The short levy was from 1-11-99 to 30-4-2000. The proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invoked.3. Before the adjudicating Deputy Commissioner, the assessees claimed that the Show Cause Notice was not valid inasmuch as it was not issued with the approval of the jurisdictional Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner's observations are as under: - "As regards the assessee's contention that the SCN was not issued as per Law, I find that the SCN was approved by the Deputy Commissioner as per the Draft SCN submitted by the Range Superintendent vide letter dt. 8-5-2000. The same was processed by the Division office vide note dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Shri N.B. Narawade and Shri P.W. Bhuyar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR537; (2003)ILLJ520Bom
Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the order of alearned Single Judge upholding the Award of the LabourCourt directing the appellants to reinstaterespondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as theworkman) with continuity of service and payment of2/3rd backwages. The workman was employed initially ona temporary basis in May, 1978. He was made permanenton 9.8.1981 and designated as a Fitter in the ChassisAssembly Department. A chargesheet was issued to him bythe appellants on 27.11.1991 alleging that the workmanhad used abusive and filthy language against hissupervisor. An enquiry was instituted against theworkman as the appellants did not accept his reply. Onthe findings and report submitted by the EnquiryOfficer, the appellants decided to dismiss the workman.Accordingly, the workman services were terminated byway of dismissal on 5.3.1993 after taking into accounthis past service record.2. A reference was made being Reference (IDA) No.66of 1994 for adjudication of the dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Sakharam Kabadi Vs. Raghu Luma Bhalerao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR554; 2003(3)BomCR234; (2003)2BOMLR142; 2003(1)MhLj174
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception of the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, Pune dated 15th December 1979 in MRT. P.STA III 1/79 (TFN B 22/79) and No. MRT P.STA III 2/79 (Ten B. 23/79). The suit land is situated at Survey No. 33 at village Padali, Taluka Junnar, District Pune. The respondent No. 2 became deemed purchaser of the suit land on the tillers day as he was cultivating the same as tenant. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 is a tribal. Respondent No. 2 subsequently purchased the suit land under Section 32G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and sale certificate under Section 32M was issued in his favour by the Tenancy Authority, which is the conclusive proof that he has become owner of the suit land. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 intended to sell the suit land and had approa...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Shivram Pawar (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Gune Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR637; 2003(1)MhLj200
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking deemed date of promotion in the post of Reader under respondent No. 1 -- College with effect from 29-11-1986 and to quash and set aside the communication dated 5-2-1991 issued by the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner has passed Ayurvidya Parangat, a post Graduate qualification from Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth in the year 1983 and was appointed as Demonstrator in the year 1980 under the respondent No. 1, after he had acquired.the B.A.M.S. degree. He subsequently acquired M.D . Degree in Kaya Chikitsa in 1985 and also passed M.A. Sanskrit in 1986. Thereafter thepetitioner was appointed as Lecturer vide order dated 22-3-1984, but with effect from 1-3-1984 under the respondent No. 1 College. This appointment was in the subject of Rog Nidan Kaya Chikitsa in the pay scale of Rs. 740-1150-1300-EB-50-1600/-.3. The respondent No. 1 College released the advertisement to fill in the po...
Tag this Judgment!Sona Chandi Oal Committee and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR670; 2003(3)BomCR450; 2003(1)MhLj401
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The issue involved in these petitions, is same and as such it is proposed to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common Judgment.2. In both the writ petitions, there is a challenge to the validity of provisions of Section 9A of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which, according to the petitioners, is ultra vires with the provisions of the Constitution insofar as it seeks to levy inspection fee on the money lenders. Petitioners, therefore, seek striking down of Section 9A of the said Act. Consequently, the petitioners also sought quashing of the Demand Notice for payment of inspection fee.3. We may refer to some facts in Writ Petition No. 3469/93 which are more comprehensive. Petitioners therein are carrying money lending business and hold money lending licence issued under the provisions of the said Act. This petition gives history of incorporation of Section 9A and states that, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath S/O Gopinath Harkad and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR228; 2003(2)BomCR768; 2003(1)MhLj369
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 20th July, 1991, on the grounds that (a) it was filed beyond limitation and (b) the Land Acquisition Officer had passed final Award on 30-6-1980 and therefore, the provisions of Section 28A of the Act were not applicable.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner's land as shown in the statement 'A' to the petition memo came to be acquired for the construction of Dhamore Minor Irrigation Bank Canal as per the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 22-8-1977. Final Award was passed on 16-9-1980 and the amount of compensation was received by the petitioners.3. The petitioners did not apply to the Land Acquisition Officer for reference under Section 18 of the Act but some other landholders, whose lands were also acquired for the said project i.e. Dhamore Minor Irrigation Tank had sought a referen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »