Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Indo German Laboratories

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT51Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short issue involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the refund claim by the respondents would result in unjust enrichment to them or not.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs sanction, the refund claim of Rs. 1,91,844.00 but credited the same to the Consumers Welfare Fund in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. He examined the invoice raised by the respondents for sale of imported Diethyl Malonate to their purchasers and observed that the following remark were made on the same. "This is an amount of Rs. 1,33,194.86 paid by us by mistake towards basic customs duty vide bill of entry No. MP-B-0006061 which is not included in this bill. We certify that the above said basic duty amount has not been received from the buyer".The appellant clarified that the expression 'basic duty' was written by mistake and it was, in fact, the countervailing duty. The above plea of the respondents was accepted by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) ...

Amakka Shiva Narandekar (Since Deceased Through L.Rs: Shri Jaipal Tato ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR440; 2005(3)BomCR350; 2005(1)MhLj1129

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal from Order has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur holding that the appellant Jaipal is not the legal representative of the deceased Amakka Shiva Narandekar and dismissing the suit on that ground.2. The deceased Amakka Shiva Narandekar had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the 1/2 share in the suit property consisting of agricultural land. This suit was filed on 26.7.1976. On 20.8.1979, Amakka executed a will in favour of Jaipal. On 8.2.1982, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. An appeal was preferred by Amakka on 11.3.1982. Amakka died on 19.6.1987 during the pendency of the appeal. Jaipal filed an application before the appellate Court for being substituted in place of the deceased Amakka as appellant as he was the legal representative of the deceased. The Respondent filed his say to this application. On 28.7.1987, the appellate Court referred the will of Amakka to the trial Judge for a...

Syndicate Bank Vs. East India Hotels Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR514; 2005(2)MhLj363

Devadhar J.P., J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 24-2-1995 wherein the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellant defendant has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by holding that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 is not applicable to the Suit No. 4000 of 1990 filed by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant defendant and that the suit is maintainable in this Court.2. For the sake of convenience the appellant is hereinafter referred to as the defendant and the respondent is hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff.3. The facts set out in the Suit No. 4000 of 1990 are that by an indenture of lease dated 12th August, 1971 the plaintiff took on lease from the Government of Maharashtra a plot of land situated at Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 for a period of 99 years on terms and conditions as more particularly set out therein. On the said plot of land, the plaintiff was to construct a 5 Star Deluxe Hotel called '...

Shri Babu Hari Patil and Vs. Shri Rama Ananda Jadhav (Since Deceased H ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR329; 2005(1)MhLj1063

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the Judgment and order dated 28.6.1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, 'MRT') by which the Revision filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3-tenants was allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.12.1985 passed by the Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, Kolhapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 37 of 1985 and 41 of 1985 and the order of Tenancy Awal Karkoon dated 19.5.1984 was maintained.2. Briefly stated, the petitioners are the purchasers of 80 Areas of land out of 1 Hector and 91 Ares from Gat No. 1222, situated at Village Paragaon, Taluka Hatkanagale. They claim to have purchased 80 Ares of land by a registered conditional sale deed dated 26.4.1983 from respondent No. 4 - landlord and since then they are in possession of the said portion of land out of Gat No. 1222.2.1 This petition arises out of the proceedings initiated by the respondents-tenants (for short, 'tenants') who filed an app...

Aqeela Khanam and ors. Vs. City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR648; 2005(2)BomCR169

Kamdar S.U., J.1. By the present petitioners are challenging the appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 as teachers in Urdu medium schools run by the 1st respondent Corporation. It has also been further prayed that a fresh appointment should be effected to the aforesaid post. In brief, the case of the petitioners is as under: -2. The petitioners were serving as Assistant Teachers in the Urdu medium school run by the respondent No. 1, in 1988-89 their tenure came to an end and, therefore, pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement they applied afresh. On 15-7-1988 an advertisement was published by the Corporation for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary school and about 375 posts were notified as and by way of vacancies. Out of the said 375 posts, 75 vacancies were notified for Urdu medium Assistant Teachers, The petitioners being duly qualified for the said appointment made applications for being appointed as teachers in the aforesaid vacancies as the petitioners we...

Dayabhai Maoji Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Vs. Vinod Sitaram Manaskhe and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR672; 2005(2)BomCR89

Sinha D.D., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned Counsel for the non-applicants.2. Mr. Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant in M.C.A. contended that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11-3-1991 directed the respondents in the said writ petition to treat the petitioners in the said writ petition as Lectures in the respondent No. 2 Dayabhai Maoji Ayurved Maha Vidyalaya, Yavatmal, with effect from the date on which they completed three years service as Demonstrators and to fix the salary of the petitioners as Lecturers from the date they are entitled as Lecturers and pay them the salary accordingly, along with the arrears and further directed respondent No. 1 Amravati University and respondent. No. 3 Director of Ayurved, to secure the fixation of salary of petitioners in the pay scale of Lecturers. Mr. Bapat, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the petitioners in the said writ petition those who are non-applicant Nos....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. C.T.M. Textile Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal filed by (be Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vide which he has allowed the Respondents' claim for refund on the ground that the length of the galleries was not to be included for the purposes of levy of duty by arriving at the annual capacity of production, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) v.Commissioner 2002 (146) ELT 254 (SC).2. The Revenue's grievance against the above order, duly represented through the Ld D.R., is that the Respondents had not filed any appeal against the order of fixing annual production capacity. Inasmuch as the order fixing the Annual Production Capacity was not challenged and the duty was being paid in accordance with the same, the Respondents could not have claimed refund of duly on the ground that in some other case the galleries have been held as non-includible. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the Respondents.3. After considering the submissi...

Cce Vs. Tetra Pak India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC966Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is, as regards the classification of "Aseptic Packaging." Whereas the appellant has classified the same under Heading 7607.60, the Revenue has classified it under Heading 3920.35 and vide their impugned orders, the original adjudicating authorities have confirmed the demand of duty accordingly.However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.2. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Calcutta I v. India Foils Ltd. 2000 (39) RLT 304 (CEGAT). The said order of this Tribunal stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (reported in 2004 (157) ELT A35). We also note that the Board vide its Circular No. 753/69/2003-CX dated 6.10.2003 has accepted the classification of the product under Heading 7607 instead of Chapter 39.Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the...

Silk City Petrofils Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT35Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, and considering that the duty demand in this case has been made under Rule 20(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in as much as certain goods which were sent under AR3A procedure from the unit in Kandla Free trade Zone to another 100% EOU at Hisar, Haryana have not been alleged to have been rewarehoused in the warehouse register maintained at Hisar unit. The affidavit of the proprietor of the Hisar unit and his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 very clearly indicate that the said goods have been received by him. No explanation from the said proprietor of the Hisar Unit appears on record as to why there was a failure on his part to rewarehouse the goods. The explanations on record are that the said goods have been diverted by Hisar unit and eventually exported out of India. This matter was adjourned in the past twice to enable the department to obtain and verify this aspect of this case i.e. whether the goods were subsequently ...

Zenith Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR529; (2005)193CTR(Bom)149; [2004]271ITR135(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. By our order dated September 22, 2004, we granted time to learned counsel for the appellant to satisfy us that the appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was maintainable against the order dated October 18, 2002. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appellant's application for leave to add additional grounds in the appeal preferred by them.2. Ms. Vissanji, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the impugned order vitally affects the rights of the appellant and the said order is covered by the expression 'every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal' occurring in Section 260A. She relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, : [1982]1SCR187 .3. Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'260A(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the ca...