Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Nitco Tiles P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(112)LC513(Bombay)

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. None for the respondents.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Bombay, whereas the petitioner No. 2 is one of the Directors of the petitioner No. 1, Company.3. The petitioner No. 1, Company holds Small Scale Industries Registration licence issued by the Directorate of Small Scale Industries. Petitioner No. 2 is a regular importer of marble/granite and other materials.4. The petitioners seek to challenge the action of the respondents in insisting a valid import licence for allowing clearance of the goods covered by the Bill of Entry in question.5. The petitioners contend that as per the Import Policy AM-78, the manufacturer-exporters, who had exported goods to Vietnam as per policy operating during the period April 77/March 1978 and who had their export contracts falling into the scheme of Export Entitlement Certificate, were granted specific Transferabl...

Mahadik Petroleum P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(112)LC237(Bombay)

ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.5.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Region Bench at Mumbai, (the Tribunal for short) directing pre-deposit in the sum of Rs. 7 lacs.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs directed-refund in the sum of Rs. 13,87,487/- to the petitioners. While granting refund, a categorical finding has been given by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs that the subject machine has been actually installed and put into use by the importer at their plant at Kolhapur. The importer had also submitted Chartered Accountant's Certificate to the Effect that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the consumers, in spite of the fact that the petitioners are incurring losses. This evidence was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs while allowing refund.4. N...

ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC198Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice F/No. VIII (72-73(63/94 dt.20.12.1994 stating as the appellant was clearing H.R. Coils, deposited in the Warehouse, in a piece-meal manner on payment of duty after getting the Bills of entries for home consumption assessed. In terms of Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, if the importer fails to pay the import duty under Section 47(1) within seven days from the date on which the Bill of Entry is returned to him for payment of duty, the importer is liable to pay interest. Based on the same, a Notice was issued alleging that appellant had made payment of duty and effected clearance of Warehoused Goods after expiry of the period of seven days from the date on which the Bills of Entry were returned to him for payment of duty and consequently appellant was liable to pay interest for the period of delay & the interest due was demanded. Appellant was also issued two further show cause notices on identical grounds. The show cause notices wer...

Rivaa Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the duty was demanded by including the length of galleries in the Hot Air Stenter chambers installed by the appellants in their factory for processing man made fabrics. The duty for the period from 16.12.98 to 29.2.2000 was paid under protest. Refund application for refund of Rs. 21,99,194/- was filed on 26.4.2000, subsequent to which the Commissioner of Central Excise finally determined the annual capacity of production by including the length of galleries, (duty liability was computed as a consequence thereof). The show cause notice dt. 6.11.2001 was issued proposing rejection of the claim for refund on the grounds interalia that the Commissioner's order dt. 23.1.2001 determining the ACP, was not challenged by the appellants herein and also on the ground that the appellants had not produced any evidence that they had not passed on duty burden to the owners of the grey fabrics. The dy. Commissioner by order dt. 23.4.2002 rejected the refund claim; the assessees went u...

J.M. Baxi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 30.000/-under Section 117 of the Act.3. Apart from the fact that as Section 1 17 stood on 26.11.97 when the Commissioner's order was passed the maximum penalty imposable under Section 117 was only Rs. 1000/-, and therefore the penalty imposed is not sustainable, I do not find grounds for imposition of penalty.4. Penalty has been imposed on the ground that ship Suzdal which was imported into Alang on 25.8.95 for breaking up and sold by the owner to Sayana Enterprises, sailed away on 1.10.95 without taking port clearance as required in Section 42 of the Act. The contention of the counsel of the appellant that it was the agent of the master of the vessel and his responsibility with regard to the ship ceased the moment it was delivered to the buyer on 23.9.1995, has to be accepted. The sole case that the departmental representative has is that by its letter dated 23.9.1995, H.K. Shipping Service Pvt. Ltd., Bhav...

Mohan Rocky Springwater Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC694Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this Order since the issue involved in them is the same. The issue is whether 'WORT' which comes into existence, during the Brewing of 'Beer' in a Brewery which the appellants are engaged in, would be classified under heading 1901.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This 'WORT' which is captively consumed after it comes into existence in the Composite Brewery could be charged to duty under the Central Excise Act.2. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record it is found - (a) The 'WORT' is an intermediate product. The show cause notices issued in both these cases, do not bring out any material to indicate how the intermediate product 'WORT' is marketable. It is now well settled that for levy of duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 on an intermediate product, establishing it's marketability is essential. The Apex Court in the case of Cadila laboratories Pvt. Ltd., v. CCE, Vadodara [2003 (152) E.L.T. 262 (S.C.)]...

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation , a Local Body Duly Constituted Und ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR95

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Only point on which the impugned orders are sought to be challenged is that once the Labour Court has arrived at the finding that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper, it was necessary for the Labour Court to afford opportunity to the petitioner to lead further evidence in relation to the charges against the employee along with the evidence on other issues and that the Courts below erred in denying such right by permitting the petitioner to lead evidence only on the remaining issues.3. The learned Advocate for the respondent has fairly submitted that the respondent does not object to the petitioner leading evidence in support of the charges against the employee in view of the fact that the Labour Court had arrived at the finding that the inquiry was not fair and proper as the law in that regard is well-settled.4. As the impugned orders are not challe...

Vijaykumar Bhogilal Patel Vs. Karim Mohammed Maredia and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR540(Bom); 2004(2)BomCR719; 2004(1)MhLj966

F. I. Rebello, J.1. There is admittedly a Deed of Partnership entered into between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant on the other, dated 1st April, 1997. Clause 11 of the said partnership deed reads as under :--'The duration of the partnership shall be 'at Will' terminable by either of the partners giving three calendar month's notice in writing to the other partners. Death, Retirement, Insolvency or Insanity of any partner shall not dissolve the partnership.'Clause 15 of the Deed of Partnership reads as under:--'All disputes and differences arising between the partners or question in connection with the partnership or this Deed shall be referred to the arbitrators one to be appointed by each party or by his/her personal representative under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force.'It is the case of the plaintiff that difference have arisen which are set out in the plaint and con...

Baburao Shankar Mahajan (Since Deceased Through His L.Rs. Mankarnika B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR440

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, the correctness of the judgment and order dated 16th June 1988 of the District Judge, Satara is called into question. The District Judge affirmed in the course of his judgment, a decree for eviction passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad, on 13th March 1985 under Section 13(1)(l) of the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. Both the Courts below have concurred in coming to the conclusion that the tenant after coming into operation of the Act has built and acquired the vacant possession of a suitable residence.2. The suit premises consist of Block No. 5 out of C.T.S. No. 221/24 at Karad City. The Petitioner is a monthly tenant of the premises and the rent has been fixed at Rs. 20/- per month inclusive of water and electricity charges. A suit for eviction had been instituted on the ground that the Defendant and one Rangubbhai had purchased on 26th December 1971 a plot ...

Co-operative Bank Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR88]; (2004)IILLJ519Bom

ORDER1. Whether an employee as defined under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short BIR Act) alone would be eligible to be selected and nominated as employee-Director under the provisions of Section 73-BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') is the short question which falls for determination in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The first petitioner is a registered trade union. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are employees of respondent No. 4 Sindhudurg District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The elections to the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent were held in December 1997 and the newly elected Directors assumed office from January 1, 1998. The petitioner Union nominated petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as employee Directors on the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 4 Bank in accordance with the provisions of Section 73-BB of the Act and communicated their names to the Election Officer as ...