Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Bharat Forge Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT339Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 31,87,359/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs we find that if was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage as the issue in dispute is covered by two circulars of the CBEC. Hence after waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The issue in dispute is the admissibility of the Cenvat credit after 01/04/2000 on capital goods used in the manufacture of intermediate products, namely, dies, which carry nil rate of duty under Notification 67/95-CE then used further in the manufacture of the appellants' final products which were cleared on payment of duty. It is the case of the department that w.e.f. 01/04/2000 Cenvat credit is not available to exempted goods whether final products or intermediate goods.3. On hearing both sides we find that the position stands clarified by the CBEC circular dated 03/04/2000 in which the Board ha...

Vilas B. Parab Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Ministry of Law and J ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR8; (2004)IILLJ317Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 21st June 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting Original Application No. 722 of 2000 of the Petitioner as there was delay in filing the same.2. The Petitioner, who is employed as a casual labourer with the Respondents, had requested the Respondents to regularise him in service. On his request and representations being turned down, he filed Original Application No. 722 of 2000 on 29th September before the Central Administrative Tribunal. According to the Tribunal, the period of limitation runs from 8th June 1999 when the first representation made by the Petitioner was rejected. The Tribunal has held that there is a delay and under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal cannot entertain an delay application filed after the period of limitation had expired. The Tribunal has held that repeated representations made by the Petitioner would not cure the delay in filing...

Special Land Acquisition Officer (Sic) and Ramuben Nagabhai Bharwad an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR41; 2004(1)MhLj1031

1. Advocates for the SLAO, Acquiring Body and the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are present. Advocate for the SLAO states that the claimant Nos. 4 and 6 have died and, he is making this statement on the basis of remarks on the RPAD which is to the effect that the addressee i.e. the claimant Nos. 4 to 6 have expired. The question arose as to who is responsible to apply for bringing the legal representatives or the deceased claimants on record. Generally, as per the practice followed, the SLAO makes an application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased claimant on record. But the question is, whether actually and legally it is the duty of the SLAO to get the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant and to make an application for bringing them on record. For this purpose I sought assistance of all the three advocates who are present in Court.2. Advocate appearing for the claimants contended that duty should be cast upon the SLAO to make necessary applicati...

Divisional Controller, Msrtc Vs. Bapu Onkar Chaudhari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004ACJ35; 2004(1)ALLMR291; 2004(3)BomCR186; 2003(4)MhLj990

B. B. Vagyani, J. 1. Heard.2. A passenger bus bearing No. MH-20/D-1831 belonging to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon met with an accident on 22-11-1997 near village Kekat Nimbhora. One Bapu Onkar Chaudhari, a passenger in the said bus, sustained several injuries resulting into permanent physical disability. He filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon allowed the application by order dated 2-3-2002 and directed the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon to pay Rs. 25,000/-to the injured, within one month.3. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaigaon, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed First Appeal No. 815 of 2002 under Section 173 of the Act. When the said first appeal came up for admission before Single Judge, ...

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Sterlite Industries (India)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR705; [2005]125CompCas14(Bom); (2004)1CompLJ358(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj1046; [2004]49SCL660(Bom)

A.P. Shah J.1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively on the issue as to whether Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, (for short 'SEBI Act') as amended by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002, is prospective or retrospective in operation. The amended Section 15Z came into force with effect from 29-10-2002. The maintainability of the above appeals has been questioned having regard to the said amendment to Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. SEBI Appeal Nos. 1 and 9 of 2002 were filed much prior to the coming into force of the amended Section 15Z. SEBI Appeal Nos. 10 of 2002 and 1 of 2003, however, have been filed after the amendment was brought into force though the orders impugned in both the appeals were passed before the amendment. The question is whether an appeal would lie to the High Court after the commencement of the amended Section 15Z. There is also an issue as to whether pending appeals whic...

Vijaykumar Laxman Kabir Vs. N.R.C. Limited,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR555; 2004(2)BomCR563

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In this proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the correctness of an Order dated 26th July 2002 of the Industrial Court at Thane is called in question. By its order, the Industrial Court dismissed a complaint filed by the petitioner under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU & PULP Act, 1971').3. The petitioner was employed by the first respondent on 1st March 1974. The petitioner initially worked as a Junior Clerk and was thereafter promoted as a Department Assistant. On 8th November 1986 a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner. The substance of the charge against the petitioner was that in certain proceedings which were pending before the Industrial Court in a complaint filed by N.R.C. Employees Union, the company h...

Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and anr. Vs. Dhananjay Deorao ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR187; 2004(3)MhLj18

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26th August 2003 passed by respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. STN/195/1996.3. The admitted facts are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 12th August 1993 for academic session 1993-94 on temporary basis. At the time of appointment, the respondent No. 1 was graduate only and had not obtained professional qualification and thus was not qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner has acquired necessary qualification of B.Ed. By appointment order dated 15-7-1994 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher for the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 on probation. A perusal of the said appointment order which is placed on record shows that the respondent No. 1 was B.Sc. B.Ed, and the appointment on probation for the aforesaid period is subject to app...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bapu Onkar Chaudhari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC89

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. A passenger bus bearing No. MH20-D 1831 belonging to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon met with an accident on 22.11.1997 near village Kekat Nimbhora. One Bapu Onkar Chaudhari, a passenger in the said bus, sustained several injuries resulting into permanent physical disability. He filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter I referred to as 'the Act') against the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon allowed the application by order dated 2.3.2002 and directed the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon to pay Rs. 25,000 to the injured, within one month.3. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed First Appeal No. 815 of 2002 under Section 173 of the Act. When the said first appeal came up for admission before Single Judge,...

Super Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 40,70,944.86 confirmed against the manufacturer and a penalty of amount equal to duty imposed upon them, the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the Director and Rs. 5 lakhs upon the Authorised Signatory of the Company, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage; hence after waiving the predeposit we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The duty demand has been confirmed on a quantity of 15297.250 kgs.of C.C.M.S. wire cleared without payment of duty and without accountal in the RG.1 Register during the period 26.6.97 to 5.3.98. The case of the department is inter alia based upon production registers, outward register and gate passes and the statement of the director of the company. The plea of the company that what was cleared were not final products but semi finished goods sent out or job work for return after ...

Godfrey Philips (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT711Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides and perused the case records and cited case -laws.The appellants admittedly received the impugned machinery on 20-12-1999 prior to 1-3-2000, when cigarette was specified as final product and thus became eligible for taking credit of duty paid on capital goods used in the manufacture. It is the case of the appellants that the impugned machinery was installed only in the month of March, 2000 and the credit of Rs. 51,380/- was taken on 30-3-2000. It is seen from the impugned order in appeal that the date of installation and the date of taking credit are also not in dispute.2. Considering the fact that the machinery was installed and the credit was taken after the appellants became eligible to take such credit on amendment in the relevant notification on 1-3-2000, I am of the view that they are legally entitled to such credit notwithstanding the fact that the machinery was received on an earlier date. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and allow the ...