Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

In Re: Lily Maritime (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)4CompLJ98(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Leave under Rule 19(3) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, granted to the applicant to take out a Judges Summons in terms of draft Judges Summons handed in, Judges Summons made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing.2. The learned counsel for the respondent files affidavit in reply sworn in by Ms. Kashmira Seth on 26 June, 2003. Affidavit is taken on record.3. Company Petition No. 188 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner, a creditor, for winding up of the respondent company. After hearing the petitioner and the company, the petition was admitted by this court by an order dated 8 August, 2002 and was advertised in Free Press Journal and Janma Bhoomi. It appears that thereafter, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the company. The petitioner, therefore, requested the court for permission to withdraw the petition whereupon the court directed that an advertisement of the proposed withdrawal be published in the same newspapers. On publica...

Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd., P. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We are concerned with the rig imported by Aban Lloyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. This company, which was at that time engaged in the business of offshore oil and gas exploratory drilling and related activities on contract for the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC for short).It purchased in July 1987 a rig, Grifin Alexander III, from Griffin Alexander Drilling Co. for a price of US$ 5.39 million. The rig was towed directly to the drilling site at Bombay High in October 1987. In February 1996, this importer wrote to the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, asking for permission to import the rig into Mumbai for carrying out repairs and re-export in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 153/94-Cus. It is not clear if there was any reply to this letter. However, it is not in dispute that the rig was towed into the waters comprising Mumbai Port on 12-11-1996 and after it was repaired, taken out of the territorial waters of India. It was once again imported in India on 9th December...

Raju Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 19,39,591/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. The duty demand has been confirmed on the applicants herein who are 100% EOU for the reason that they had contravened the condition of Notification No. 2/95 which provided that: [a] DTA sale should have been allowed by the Competent Authority in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 9.9 or paragraph 9.20 of EXIM Policy 1997-2002. [b] The total value of such clearances does not exceed 50% of the FOB value of exports made during the year.According to the department, although DTA sale beyond the specified limit was permitted earlier, the DTA sale during the period, was not permitted by the competent authority. It is the further case of the department that the total value of such clearances exceeded 50% of the FOB value of the exports made during the year and therefore both the...

Rpg Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reason recorded below, we waive the predeposit of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed upon the appellants herein and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, since the issue lies within a very narrow compass.2. Penalty has been imposed on the appellants herein who are manufacturers of Pesticides (Formulation Grade) on the ground that they failed to determine the duty liability correctly as there was a higher price charged and collected by their depots for the sale of their products during the period March 1994 to June 1996. The penalty has been imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules.3. The challenge before the Tribunal is both to the confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 6,76,247/- as well as the penalty of equal amount.As far as the penalty is concerned the submission is that consolidated combined penalty under both the provisions is not sustainable. In this connection ...

Saraf Fabrics Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Company and its Managing Director, appellants herein, are engaged in the manufacture and export of Readymade Garments and furnishing fabrics. They are recognised as an Export House by the Government of India On the exports, made they were entitled for issue of import licences under the Pass Book Exemption Scheme with an obligation to fulfill exports under the pass book issued to them. Their obligations were fixed as Rs. 83,20,423/-, that was fulfilled, before the imports in this case were effected. This export obligation fulfillment stand endorsed in Part II of pass book, Duty free raw materials viz. Dyes, Chemicals, Adhesive tapes, polypropylene, PVC, Hook and Loop fasteners, elasting webbing, Polyester, shirt buttons etc. were imported and cleared and certain consignments in this case as listed. Therein the Annexure VI to show cause notice list goods lying in Bombay Dock under clearance were for which Bill of Entries were filed. Some of the goods, earlier cleared lying at Par...

Bayer Abs Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants have been engaged in the manufacture of ABS resins falling under Heading 39.03. As these goods are used in the manufacture of Telephone, House Hold Appliances, Computer Appliance, Automobile parts, Writing instructions, etc., the customers of the appellants also availed invariably modvat credit of the duty so paid by appellants on their final products. (a) During the period October 1996 to 31.5.96, (the period of demand is from Oct 96 to June 2000) the appellants, as submitted, used to sell the excisable goods directly to the Customers/Dealers from their factory. However, from 1.6.99 the appellant had adopted two channels for marketing the goods. In the first channel, they entered into agreement with some 10 or 12, parties termed consignment stockist. In this case, goods were insured by the appellants up to the premises the consignment stockists. Similarly the freight from the appellant's factory to the premises of the consignment stockists was also borne by the appe...

H.R. Patel and Brian Keith Krejci Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The fact of the case are that on 18.11.99, the appellants herein who arrived from USA by Air-India Flight were intercepted by the officers of Customs Air Intelligence unit, International Airport Ahmedabad. Shri H.R. Patel declared old and used IBM Computer with accessories valued at Rs. 24,000/-, while his employee, Mr. Brian Keith, declared networking equipment of value of Rs. 16,000/- and duty was paid on these values. Since the values appeared to be lower, the goods were detained. Enquiries made with the agents in India of M/s. IBM as well as from the agents of New Bridge Net Working Corporation revealed that the actual values were very much higher. On physical examination the goods were found to be new, and not old and used as claimed.Subsequently the two passengers left for USA granting Power of Attorney to one Mr. J.B. Patel to pursue the case. Shri Patel produced some invoices for the seized goods, wherein the value of the goods was shown as over US$ 22,000/- i.e. substantia...

Shri Baburao Abaji Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Department of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR195; 2003(6)BomCR273; 2003(4)MhLj895

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Bodake for the Petitioner and Ms. Bhende. AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are served but nobody appears for them.2. The Petitioner herein was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school run by Respondent No. 4 - Education Institution situated in District Kolhapur. Respondent No. 5 is the Principal of the Junior College run by the same institution. The case of the Petitioner is that from 1.7.1973 he was working in that school. He has qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed. Subjects of his specialization are history and sociology. He claims to have been up-graded and promoted as a full time teacher in the Junior College from 1.7.1981. It is his case that Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director of Education granted an approval to his being given appropriate salary in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1030 vide his letter dated 19.11.1984. In fact however, he was not given a salary according to the pay scale. He has been corresponding in his behalf and the P...

Nagaraj Gowda and ors. Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Li ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR201; 2003(4)MhLj619

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitionersand the respondent No. 1. Perused the records.2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 27-1-2000,passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No.889 of 1994,filed by the petitioners, holding that the workers employed by the respondent No.2 in the canteen in question are not the employees of the respondent No. 1 and,therefore, the complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition ofTrade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinaftercalled as 'the said Act', was not maintainable.3. While challenging the impugned judgment and order, the learnedAdvocate for the petitioners has submitted that the Court below has totallyoverlooked the fact that the respondent No. 1 was statutorily bound to have acanteen in the premises of the undertaking and accordingly had such canteenwherein the petitioners were continuously employed irrespective of change of th...

Shaukat Ali and anr. Vs. Economic Engineering Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR239

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners are challenging the Awards dated 24-3-1999, passed in Reference (IDA) Nos. 493 of 1987 and 685 of 1989 by the Labour Court, Mumbai. The challenge is two-fold, namely, that the Awards in question are not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' in as much as that the same do not specify the ingredients of the definition of 'Award' under section 2(b) of the said Act, the secondly, that the settlement, based on which the Awards were passed, was not fair and reasonable and the same totally ignored by the Labour Court while passing the impugned Awards.3. During the pendency of the said two references for adjudication before the Labour Court, a memorandum of settlement was executed between the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2, who was representing the workmen employed in the undertaking of the respondent No....