Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Ceat Limited Vs. Dayaram Kishorelal Yadav and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR615; 2004(1)BomCR521; [2004(101)FLR717]; 2004(2)MhLj523

R.M.S Kandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The short point for consideration which arises in both the petitions is whether the Industrial Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' while dealing with a complaint under the said Act, is empowered to consider the justifiability of the suspension of an employee during the pendency of the enquiry against him.3. The respondent No. 1 in both these petitions came to be suspended on different dates on the allegation of charges of serious misconduct and continued to be under suspension during the enquiry which prolonged beyond 180 days from the date of commencement of suspension. Both the respondents file...

Viswasrao Bhaurao Bhoite (Chavan) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj245

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioners owned agricultural land in Gat No. 563 of village Ruibhar and land admeasuring 7.17 hectares came to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for short) for the Ruibhar Project in Osmanabad district. Award was passed under Section 11 of the Act and they received the compensation. They had not applied under Section 18 of the Act for reference for enhancement of compensation. Land Acquisition Reference No. 241 of 1991 filed by Manik s/o Babarao Tirthkar came to be decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Osmanabad on 19th October, 1993 and taking support of the said award, the petitioners approached the Collector and submitted a claim on 10th May, 1994 under Section 28A of the Act claiming that they were covered by the same verification and award as the claimant in L.A.R. No. 241 of 1991. This application was not decided for quite some time and, therefore, they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4474 of 1996 ...

Sanjay Narang Vs. Dit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Mumbai)19

ORDERG.C. Gupta, J.M.:These two appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since identical issue is involved in these appeals, these are being disposed of with this common order.2. The ground of appeal No. 1 in both the appeals is not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee and is accordingly dismissed.3. The ground of appeal No. 2 in both the appeals is regarding the perquisite value of the rent-free quarter taken at Rs. 10,30,983 as against Rs. 4,670 returned by the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98 and at Rs. 10,17,840 as against Rs. 7,860 returned by the assessee for the assessment year 1998-99. The admitted facts are that the assessee was having income under the head 'salary' and was provided as a perquisite a furnished residential accommodation which is a storied bungalow with a maintained garden in posh locality of Bandra (West), Mumbai. The bungalow is at a stone's throw away ...

Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT335Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2,52,853/-. The said amount stands confirmed by the authorities below on the ground that the appellants have depressed the prices of 'huggies' brand of diapers, which they were ultimately selling in the market along with the pack of pears soap as a part of their sale promotion scheme.2. It has been observed in the order passed by the authorities below that the regular packs of huggies were being cleared by the appellant's factory at a higher price, whereas the sales promotion packs were being cleared at a lower assessable value. The appellant case is that they were paying the price of the soaps to the manufacture of the soaps which was being cleared from their factory on payment of duty and these two items i.e. huggies and soap were being cleared together from their depot on the same sale price at which the normal pack of huggies was being sold. They have contended that two types...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hotel Leela Venture Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC328

1. The short point involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue, is as to whether the window clearing equipment imported by the respondents for the upkeep and maintainance of the Hotel, would be eligible for the concession as available under Notification No.28/97-CUS dated 01.01.1997 which provides concessional rate of duty to the capital goods required for rendering services.2. The adjudicating authority has denied benefit to the respondents, by observing that the window clearing equipment is meant for maintainance of the Hotel and does not render any service to the customer. Therefore the same do not qualify to be 'capital goods' for the purpose of Notification No. 28/97. However, that order was set aside by the Commissioner by observing as under:- "I have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions of the appellant. From the definition of capital goods given in the notification number 28/97, I find that any plant, machinery, equipments or accessories requi...

Puneet Resins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 18,48,507/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has confirmed that duty and penalty by denying the benefit of the exemption claimed y the applications herein, in terms of sr. no. 3 of the table to notification 18/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 2. We have heard both sides. Under the above mentioned notification, exemption is available inter alia to rubber products in the form of plates, sheets and strips, unhardened and unvulcanised, and ..........falling under CETA sub-heading 4005.00, subject to the condition that no credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the said goods has been availed of under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the present case, the benefit has been denied on the ground that the products in question were in granular or lump form which were only rolled into sheet like form for the purpose of ease of transportation and they are there...

Malabad Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some times on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of penalty (details of which are set out in annexure 'A' to this order), we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit. The period of dispute is April 1999 to May 2000.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in procuring and selling the product called "wood guard", which is used for preservation of wood and plywood. The managing director of the appellants, Shri R.N. Kulkarni, was conducting business earlier under the name of Hi-Tech Chemical Industries who were procuring wood guard in bulk in barrels of 200 litres from Altron Chemicals, Satara, who, in turn, used to procure the same from one Gulati Udyog, Bhilai, who were manufacturers of light creosote oil cleared by them on payment of duty under chapter heading 27.07 of the schedule to the Central...

Chlochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC365

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) does not find it possible to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner impugned before him. In his order, the Assistant Commissioner disallowed reversal of modvat credit of Rs. 406921.16 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner was adjudicating on a notice issued to the appellant proposing these actions on the ground that, following shifting of its factory from its premises at Phase II GIDC, Vadodara, to Phase III, the appellant without obtaining requisite permission from the authority transferred the modvat credit to the new factory.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice and have not filed any written submission. Therefore, I read the memorandum of appeal and also heard the departmental representative.3. The contention of the appellant is that the report that it had made on 26.3.1993 for transfer of the credit which has not been taken into accou...

Sterling Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC324

1. Sterling Coach Builders Pvt Ltd was engaged in the manufacture of door trims and floor covering for motor vehicles in its factory at Thane. The appellant decided some time in 1996 to shift its factory to Nasik and took appropriate steps to do so including informing its suppliers of raw materials to send the goods in future to its new location at Nasik. However, for some reason, the proposed shift could not materialise and the appellant continued to produce the goods in its existing factory at Thane. Some time between February and December 1996, the appellant received nine consignments of synthetic floor covering, stated to be raw materials, from their manufacturer Hitkar Fibres Ltd, Mahad. The goods were consigned to the appellant's factory at Thane, and on receipt the appellant took credit of the duty paid on the goods. Seven notices subsequently issued by the department alleging that credit was taken contrary to law, and on the ground that the invoices were issued by the manufact...

Sulaki Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some times, we find that these appeals can be heard and disposed off at the stay stages itself. Accordingly, we waive pre-deposit of the duty and penalties and proceed to decide the appeals.2. The appellants have filed a miscellaneous application for taking on record additional documents and additional grounds which is allowed after hearing both sides.3. Shri A. Hidaytulla, learned advocate for the appellants challenges the impugned order both on merits and on the ground of time bar. He states that the impugned intermediate products are not excisable, their characteristics are different from the characteristics of products produced at G.A.I.L., Vijaipur and hence not comparable. He also states that the impugned products have been held to be similar to products of Atlas Petrochemicals and Ram Remedies, but the appellants have not been furnished details of the comparable products and that the appellants themselves also could not obtain such details as the...