Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1128Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that demand of Rs. 10,680/-covering the period October, 1993 and November 1993 is already covered in the first show cause notice. According to the Revenue the first show cause notice dated 20-4-1994 sought to deny excess credit of Rs. 400/- PMT availed on vanaspati used in the manufacture of biscuits while the second show cause notice proposed to deny credit on the same ground taken on certain other invoices. The basic issue is as to whether the payment of Rs. 1,000/- PMT by the respondents herein out of the money credit availed by them is also to be taken into account, or it is only the payment of Rs. 500/- from the RG 23 account that is to be taken into consideration.2. After hearing both sides and noting that the basic issue, namely, eligibility to credit has been decided in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal decision in their own case by order No.CI/1292-93/2000-WZB, dated ...

Shri Dayabhai Shambhu Gala, Vs. Lydia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR677; 2004(2)BomCR729; 2004(2)MhLj534

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The present case is a classic example of how a party can with machination and manipulation and in concert with a Judge subvert the ends of justice. Respondent No.2, who is a Judge of the Co-operative Court and Respondent No.4, who is the Secretary of the Respondent No.1 Society, have in connivance over-reached the order passed by this Court and sought to deliberately and wilfully ignore the directions contained in the order of a Division Bench this Court.2.The present Contempt Petition has been filed by the Partners of a firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s.Premson. They occupy Shop No.3 in the Respondent No.1 Co-operative Society. Respondent No.1 is a Co-operative Housing Society. Respondent No.2 is the Judge of the IInd Co-operative Court, Mumbai. Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.4 is the Secretary of the Respondent No.1 Society. The Contempt Petition has been admitted and a Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Resp...

Abdul Shakur Umar Sahigara and Co. Vs. Regional Director, Employees St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1126]; (2004)ILLJ921Bom; 2004(2)MhLj441

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order (Exh. A/62) dated October 18, 2002 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Mumbai (E.I. Court for short), whereby an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking to summon Shri J.R. Patankar, Assistant Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation as a Court witness came to be rejected on the ground that his evidence was not necessary for deciding the matter in controversy before the Court.The Facts2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:The appellant (original applicant) is a registered partnership firm operating as commission agent and also engaged in the business of Beetle Nuts, Pepper, Cardamom and other spices. By letter dated July 28, 1980 the Regional Director of the Employees' Insurance Corporation informed the appellant that the appropriate Government extended the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) to other establishments under Section 1...

Shaikh Dawood Shaikh Ommor (Alias) Mujjawar Through His Heirs and Lega ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)IILLJ202Bom; 2004(3)MhLj94

ORDERD.G. Desphande, J.1. Heard advocates for the appellants and respondents. The appellant - the deceased in this case is the original plaintiff. He was serving in Reserve Bank of India as a peon. He was employed by the Reserve Bank of India in 1945. At that time he had not given his date of birth. In 1952 he was asked about his date of birth and he gave his date of birth as March 14, 1924. The age of his retirement was 60 years.Therefore, he was to retire in 1984. In the year 1984 itself he filed a suit for a declaration that he could not be retired in March 1984 because in 1979 he came to know, in a particular background, that his real date of birth is July 10, 1926, and therefore, he must be continued in service till July 9 or 10, 1986.2. The claim and contentions of the plaintiff was opposed by the Reserve Bank of India on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiff has given his date of birth as March 14, 1924 in 1952 on his own, and now he cannot be permitted to seek change in the said ...

Alban Joseph Gonsalves Vs. Rallis India Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR702; (2004)106BOMLR645

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate for the petitioner, who Is the original owner of the property and, the Advocate for the respondent, who was the licensee. This Revision is directed against the order of the Competent Authority established under Section 31 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act').2. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property, has given his property, situated at Plot No. 68 of Town Planning Scheme No. Ill, Bandra, Mumbai admeasuring 1330 sq. ft. and so, on leave and licence basis under the written agreement first time on 15.1.1967 and from time to time the agreement of leave and licence came to be continued followed by subsequent written agreement. For the first time in June, 1996 the respondent started asserting that they are the protected tenant and they would not enter into fresh agreement of leave and licence. Therefore, at the Instance of petitioner, an application came to be moved und...

The President, Janata Shikshan Mandal and anr. Vs. Subhash Vithoba She ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR120; 2004(3)BomCR754; (2004)106BOMLR909

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgments and orders dated September 25, 1989, and March 1, 1990, passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Pune/Shivaji University, Pune in Appeal No. 11/89(S).2. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as part-time lecturer in English subject on 18th July, 1987. The appointment order clearly mentions that the appointment is on probation upto 2 academic years, i. e., 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petitioners terminated the services of the Respondent No. 1 by letter dated 29th March, 1989 with effect from 29.6.1989, which is before the expiry of two years' probation period. On perusal of the termination letter, no doubt the same is termination simpliciter. Nonetheless, the respondent No. 1 challenged the action of the petitioner by way of statutory appeal before the College Tribunal. The petitioners resisted the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 and justified the termina...

Motimiya Rahimmiya and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom460; 2005(1)MhLj911

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. All these appeals involve common question of facts and, the advocates are same and the respondents are also same. Therefore, I heard the advocates jointly and I am passing this common order.2. All the three appellants have filed suits before the City Civil Court claiming identical reliefs, for example, relief claimed by the appellant in Appeal No. 976 of 2002 was for declaration that the deportation of the plaintiff on the earlier occasion dated 31-12-1996 is illegal, void and of no effect; and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendants from deporting the plaintiffs out of India. The 1st defendant in that suit was the State of Maharashtra and the 2nd defendant was the Union of India. They are the respondents in these appeals. The contentions of the plaintiffs that they are the citizens of India and they cannot be deported were negatived by the trial Court. Therefore, these appeals.3. Counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have filed n...

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants have filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has come to the following findings:- "I find from a scrutiny of the contract entered into by the appellant an DGMHS, UP, that one of the conditions is that "UP Govt. 1999-2000' must be indelibly printed on each label amp vial phial Foil boxes tin container and outer carton. I find that 'UPG 1999/2000' is clearly printed on the copy of the label that has been submitted by the appellants at Annexure G of their appeal memorandum. Thus it is clear that the said product has been specially packed for exclusive use of servicing the hospitals of U.P. Government. Furthermore, by no stretch of the imagination can DGMHS be considered a retail outlet. Hence proviso a (iii) to Rule 34 of Standards Of Weights And Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 is not applicable in this case. On these grounds it is clear that Standards Of Weights And Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 ...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The miscellaneous application for extension of stay order No.C-II/4063/WZB/2002 dated 18/11/2002 by which unconditional stay was granted to the appellant. However, we find that the issue lies in a narrow compass and the appeal can be taken up and disposed of at this stage.2. We have heard Ld. Advocate Ms. Anjali Chandrekar and Shri K.L.Bablani, JCDR.3. It is seen that the show cause notice issued to the appellant proposing the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 40,58,904/- on the alleged ground that the appellant had not declared Polyester Chips as one of the final products in their modvat declarations filed. The adjudicating authority vide an impugned order para 8, accepts the contention of the appellants by observing as under:- "As regards the assessee's contention that non-filing of declaration of polyester chips as final products in the modvat declaration is procedural irregularity. I find that polyester chips was declared during the material time as intermediate product in their d...

Haren Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT65Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are processors of cotton and man made fabrics and hold a Registration for the said processing attracting Central Excise levy. a) Received duty paid embroidered fabrics classified under heading 5805 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for processing and return the same after processing to the suppliers. They complied with the processing and returned the fabrics without payment / due discharge of any duty thereon. c) i) The notice dt. 03.02.1995 classified the goods cleared as processed fabrics and determined duty on the same based on value of fabrics plus processing charges at 10% ad valorem without showing the relevant heading. ii) Notice dt. 23.08.1995 was similarly worded as notice dt. 03.02.1995. iii) Notice dt. 17.01.1996 alleged clearance made under classification head 5804 to be with wrong exemption. d) The original authority found that embroidery was done on Grey fabrics of cotton or man made fabrics, which were subjected to bleaching, dyeing, printing and any ...