Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Picks Medical System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT218Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this case is the classification of the product 'Surgical Mobile Image Intensifier T.V. System', manufactured by the assessee. During the course of the hearing before us, it was demonstrated that the Commissioner in his finding has alleged that no material was produced, while sufficient material in the form of literature used and other manufacturers of identical products before the ld. Commissioner by the assessee and the same was not considered.We would therefore at this prima facie conviction, set aside the order and remand the same back to the Commissioner with direction to consider the material already supplied and any other fresh materials the appellants would like to rely upon and thereafter hearing the appellants determine the classification and eligibility of the entity in question.2. The Revenue's appeal is against the direction of the Commissioner as regards abreacting the functions of the adjudicator inasmuch as he has directed certain other aspects ...

Rajpal Solanki and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC209

1. Justice Dr. Pratibha Upasani Chairperson--This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 4 and 5 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Misc. Application No. 100 of 2003 in Original Application No. 396 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application made by the appellants/ original defendant Nos. 4 and 5 Mr. Rajpal Solanki and Mr.Jetinder Singh to condone the delay of 162 days in filing an application for review of the final orders dated 27.9.2002 passed in the Original Application No. 396 of 2001.2. I have heard Mr. Dhall for the appellants and Mr. Deepak Thakkar for the respondent No. 1 Bank I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, the learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error.3. It appears that the applicant Central Bank of India had filed the original application against the defen...

Maharashtra State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Damodhar Sakharam Bho ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR854; [2005(105)FLR172]; 2005(1)MhLj1092

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India petitioners-employer challenged the order dtd. 29-3-1988 passed by 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur and the order dtd. 3-3-1992 passed by Industrial Court, Nagpur in revision confirming the same.2. The original respondent No. 1 Damodhar was appointed as Watchman of the petitioners on 23-6-1981. He was to be medically examined before his appointment but that medical examination could not be done and thereafter he was sent for medical examination by letter dated 5-1-1987. Said respondent accordingly appeared before Civil Surgeon Chandrapur, who examined him and Submitted a report that he is suffering from Aortic Stenosis with incompetence. In view of this finding the petitioner referred the case of respondent to Medical Board and on 27-6-1987 he was informed by the petitioner-Board that he was not found fit for service and he would be terminated after 30 days.3. The original respondent challenged this ...

Satish S/O Nandikishor Tiwari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR453; 2005(3)BomCR255; 2005(2)MhLj240

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two writ petitions are common and identical inasmuch as in both the petitions the petitioners are claiming appointment to the posts of Talathi. These petitions are resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on identical grounds and, therefore, we dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment.The Facts in W. P. No. 4637/2003 :2. The petitioner in this petition is a son of Shri Nandkishor Gangaprasad Tiwari who was a Freedom Fighter and is a holder of 'Sanman Patra' issued by the State Government on 28th March, 1988. The Government of Maharashtra has issued Government Resolution dated 2nd March, 1981 and granted various concessions to the Freedom Fighters and their nominees in recruitment in class-Ill and class-IV categories in the Government service. The post of 'Talathi' ranks in class-III category. On 10th March, 1998 the petitioner was nominated by his father as nominee in the office of the District Collector, Nagpur for the benefits which are available t...

Shah and Mehta and Mukesh K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC631

1. A case of misuse of actual user facility import under open General law was made out and imported goods allowed to be cleared on benefit of exemption notification No. 345/86-Cus on BE, filed by M/s. Shah fiting Co and M/s. Kashmir Enterprises were interdiated on their proceedings initiated on producing in query that the imports were made by their non -existing firms. However, consequent to detailed enquires made and show cause notice issued interactive to the firms and others; the Ld.Commissioner, after considering the material concluded - i) Out of 17 mt of PVA BP 20 imported, 5 mt, as available and seized should be confiscated under Section 111 (d) & 111(o) of the Central Excise Act, 1962 and be offered a redemption fine of 3 Lakhs. ii) Ordered the recovery of differential duty on the quantity of 17 mt from the real importer, without naming the real importer. iii) Penalty of Rs. 8,50,000/- was imposed on M/s. Cashmir Enterprise, Shivpur, Shrinagar, Kashmir under Section 112 (a...

Manmade Spinners (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These stay applications arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed a duty of Rs. 49.05 lakhs and Rs. 57,71,186/-and ordered appropriation of the said amounts from the payments made. He . also imposed a penalty of Rs. 49,00,000/- and Rs. 1,85,95,907/-.2. The applicants are manufacturers/processors of cotton and man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 52,54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing of the facility of payment of duty of excise on fortnightly basis in terms of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The applicants paid duty of excise on removal of each consignment by debit of the part duty amount in the CENVAT account as they were facing a cute shortage of funds. By an order dated 4-6-2001, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise held that the applicants are defaulters and directed them to pay duty of excise on removal of each consignment by debiting the duty...

Zakariya Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application arose out of the order of me Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II. The dispute in this case pertains to the period 1.8.1983 to 31.8.1986. The applicant was engaged in the manufacture of steel angles and bars falling under chapter heading 72.10 and 72.09 respectively of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff item No. 25(9) and (11) of the first schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 prior to 1.3.1986). The applicant was clearing the steel angles and bars without payment of duty and without a central excise registration as he was of the opinion that the goods produced by him were exempt from duty under notification 208/83-CE dated 1.8.1983 as amended, which exempted certain products of iron and steel from the whole of the duty of excise if made out of certain specified inputs. The application for waiver of pie-deposit of duty demanded (Rs. 20,92,599.80) is mainly based on two grounds. It is stated that the entire demand is time-barre...

Siachen India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT276Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded Rs. 46,14,206/- towards duty and imposed a similar amount of penalty. He also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 80,000/- on the goods confiscated on the ground that the goods were clandestinely removed.2. The applicant is a manufacturer of laminated manmade and cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Certain goods which were removed without payment of duty were seized and later the factory of the applicant was searched and incriminating documents were also seized. During the course of investigation before the issue of show cause notice, the applicant paid an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/-and Rs. 44,844/- being the duty leviable on the goods on which duty was not discharged. The main grounds in the stay application are that the adjudication proceedings were conducted ex parte without giving opportunity to the ap...

Niranjan Thakur Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Mum.)253

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order under Section 158BC r/w Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961 for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 12th Sept., 1996. The grounds taken in appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Jt. CIT, Special Range-27 ("the AO") erred in passing order under Section 158BC r/w Section 254 of the Act on 13th March, 2001 which was barred by limitation. 2. The appellant prays that it be held that the order passed by the AO was time-barred and consequently the assessment made be annulled. 1. The AO erred in not complying with specific directions given by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dt. 18th Aug., 1998. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that it was incumbent upon him to follow specific directions given by the Hon'ble Tribunal while setting aside the original assessment. 3. He further failed to appreciate and ought to have held that it was not open to him to frame an assessment ...

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Hindustam Lever Employees Union and B.S. B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)ILLJ1119Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The first respondent Hindustan Lever Employees Union (for short 'the Union') filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the appellant (for short 'the employer') under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'Act of 1971'). The complaint was resisted by the employer. The Industrial Court, Bombay after recording the evidence and hearing the parties allowed the complaint vide its order dated 5th January, 1995. The operative order reads thus : 'i) Complaint is allowed. ii) It is hereby declared that the Respondents have committed an unfair labour practice under item 9 of Sch. IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. They should cease and desist from engaging in the said unfair labour practice. iii) It is further declared that discontinuation of lines in Hard Soaps Department, a Section of Toilet Soaps Departments, Printing Department and the closure of E.P.C. (Machine Building) Departm...