Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Air India Limited, a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR76; [2004(101)FLR267]

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. In all these Petitions, the notices were issued for final disposal of the matters at the admission stage as the issue involved in all these Petitions is a common issue and the same has already been settled by the decision of the Division Bench in Appeal (Lodging) No. 351 of 2003 in Writ Petition No. 813 of 2003 along with various other connected matters delivered on 30th June, 2003. Accordingly, all these Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The issue in all these petitions relates to the right of the workmen to claim subsistence allowance during the pendency of the application under Section. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the procedure to be followed by the Court below while dealing with the application for any such interim relief in that regard during the pendency of such proceedings, and in that regard, the Division Bench in the above referred decision has ruled thus:--'Broadly the c...

Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR677; 2004(2)MhLj242

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 1-9-2003 and 19-8-2002, passed by the authorities below under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The first order was passed by the appellate authority while the latter by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. By the impugned orders, the licence issued to the petitioner for having amusement programmes at his hotel premises, namely M/s Hotel Topsy, situated at Rizvi Chambers, Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai, has been suspended for a period of 30 continuous days. During the pendency of the hearing and disposal of this petition, pursuant to the issuance of rule, the execution of the said order was stayed.3. The challenge to the impugned orders is on four grounds. Firstly, that the orders are contrary to the provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case and reveal total non-application of mind to the fac...

Smt. Santaben Natwarlal Hargovandas Foundation Vs. Asstt. Director of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)331

ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 15--10-1997, for the assessment year 1993-94.2. The grounds of appeal read as under :'Ground No. 1: treatment of corpus donation of Rs. 9,69,675 as ordinary donation.1.1 the appellant submits that the honourable Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in treating the corpus donation of Rs. 9,69,676 as voluntary donation and thereby considering it as income of the trust.1.2 the appellant submits that the donation was given with a specific direction to be credited to the corpus, therefore, the said donation was to be considered as a corpus donation only.1.3 The appellant also submits that the corpus donation has been invested in approved investments and not spent on charitable activities as stated by the Commissioner (Appeals).Ground No. 2 : donation to Nathadwara trust-Rs. 1, 75, 0002.1 the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holdin...

Chief Engineer, Ground Water Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Swc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duly of Rs. 1,19,15,651/- which has been confirmed as a result of classification of the disputed goods under Customs Tariff heading 8705.20, rejecting the applicant's claim for classification under Customs Tariff heading 8430.41, the learned counsel Shri Doiphode submits that the goods in question are mobile drilling rigs which are special purpose motor vehicles i.e. the carrier on which the rig is inseparably attached (the rig is mounted permanently on the carrier in such a way that it cannot be easily dismantled and the carrier cannot be used for any other purpose but for transporting the drill) and are therefore correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff heading 84.30. In this connection he draws our attention to Tribunal's order in the case of LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda 1994 (70) ELT 580 wherein it has been held that water well drilling rigs, mounted on motor vehicle chassis in such an integrate...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Modern Petrofils

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT497Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of capital goods credit of Rs. 80,47,576/- on items such as power distribution board, electrical motors, etc., used for power transmission in the factory of the respondents who are manufacturers of manmade filament yarn. The period of dispute is November, 1994 to June, 1995.2. We have heard both sides. The details of the goods on which credit has been disallowed are as under: i. Power Distribution Board / HT Switchboard / Panel Board / Control and Relay Panel:- These are electrical apparatus for switching or projective electrical circuits or for making connections or in electrical circuits - amount of credit involved is Rs. 32,603/-; ii. Voltage Stabiliser and Static Converter - amount of credit involved is Rs. 27,230/-; iii. Circuit Breaker Isolator / Junction Box / Electric Switches and Fuses - amount of credit involved is Rs. 3,04,195/-; v. Welding Electrode - these are used for fusing the pipeline ends for joining them with fittings - a...

Rotron (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case a demand of duty of Rs. 61,227.60 has been confirmed on LDPE/HDPE granules manufactured during the period April, 1990 to January, 1991, modvat credit of Rs. 1,87,067.92 has been disallowed on inputs lying in stock prior to 08/02/1991, on the ground that prior permission as required under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules was not obtained; and a demand of Rs. 1,440.40 has been confirmed on account of certain corrections of the date on the gate passes.2. We have heard both sides. The appellants admit that the process of conversion of granules into powder by pulverisation amounts to manufacture; and therefore duty liability has to be discharged thereupon; however, they submit that duty @ 10% ad valorem is payable as per para (1)(b) of Notification 175/86 while the duty demand has been confirmed by applying the rate of 20% ad valorem. The concessional rate of duty of 10% ad valorem is applicable depending upon the value of clearances during a particular financial year a...

Vishakha Pharma Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 8,16,962/-and penalty of equal amount arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai as result of classification of the product in dispute, namely, Kidicare, under CETA sub-heading 2108.99 instead of under CETA sub-heading 3003.10 as claimed by the applicants, on an, application of the extended period of limitation.2. We have heard both sides. As far as prima facie dispute on classification is concerned we find that in the case of the same product, in an application filed for waiver, along with appeal by M/s.Meyer Organics Private Limited, the bench by order No.Ci/2963-65/2002/WZB dated 24/09/2002 had not accepted prima facie claim for classification by the applicants and had directed pre-deposit of the entire duty demand. On the aspect of limitation in the earlier order of the Tribunal prima facie reliance has been placed on the statement of the officer, but before us it is clarified by both s...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Srinivas Chem. Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is Revenue's appeal. The case of the respondents is that the goods "piperidinol" cleared by them originally on 24/11/1990 on paying excise duty of Rs. 10,631.25 were returned by the customer because there was some problem with the material. The material was received back in their factory on 14/05/1991 alongwith the original gate pass.The rejected material was verified on 17.05.1991, by the range staff.Thereafter, the respondents carried out the re-distillation of the said rejected material and subsequently cleared, the same to another customer on payment of duty amounting to Rs. 12,424.40. On verification of refund claim, it was observed that the respondents had not submitted the original duty paying documents and had not mentioned the specified processes carried out on the returned goods. The respondents contested the show cause notice issued to them proposing rejection of the claim on these grounds and furnished the original gate pass. They also produced the Form V register ...

Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to credit under Rule 57Q of the duty paid on hot water generator, industrial water heater, computer system, siliminate mortar and zimborne cement. The Commissioner (Appeals) has in the order impugned in the appeal, confirmed the denial of credit on the ground that the goods were not capital goods since they did not conform to the requirement in Rule 57Q that they were used to produce or process any goods or bring about any change in any substance in the manufacture of the final product.2. I have considered the written submission that the appellant has filed. I have heard the departmental representative.3. The use of the goods has been explained in detail in the appeal. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of vacuum flask and their refills. The hot water generator is used to test the thermal quality of the refills. The industrial water heater used to provide heat required for other manufacturing process. The com...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Vikas Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application filed by the Revenue for stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who has upheld the classification of the goods in dispute, JSX-1000S Cinema Processor, under Customs Tariff heading 9007.92 as claimed by the importer rejecting the proposal of the department for classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8543.89.2. We note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal's order in the case of Cine Land v. CC, Chennai 1999 (114) ELT 653 in coming to the decision on classification. It is the contention of the learned DR that the goods cannot fall for classification under Chapter heading 90.07 as this sub-heading is only for parts and accessories for cinematographic projectors while the catalogue of the goods in question shows that it can be used with other music system. He therefore submits that Chapter Heading 85.04 covering electrical machine having individual functions not elsewhere specified...