Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Cancer Relief Society, Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital and Resear ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR79; [2004(102)FLR1160]; (2004)IIILLJ862Bom; 2004(3)MhLj572

A.S. Oka, J.1. This Court had already issued notice for final disposal at admission stage. Rule. The respondent No. 2 waives service. Service of Rule on respondent No. 1 is dispensed with, as respondent No. 1 is a formal party. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was forthwith taken up for final hearing. I have heard the counsel appearing for parties at length.2. The short question involved in this petition is whether the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1963') are applicable to an appeal preferred under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.3. Before considering the facts of the case, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1972'). Section 7(7) of the said Act reads thus :7(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, p...

Vidarbha Engineering Industries and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Bom)27; [2004]271ITR229(Bom)

ORDER UNDER SECTION 269UDAlleged distress sale--Details not given in Form No. 37-ICatch Note:After considering collaboration agreement entered into by petitioners for development of a industrial plot into commercial one and consideration payable to owner of plot, the Appropriate Authority passed an order after filing of Form No. 37-I. The petitioners contended that it was a distress sale. Held : The order passed under section 269UD(1) was based on fair market value determined on basis of comparable sale instances as the petitioner did not furnish details in Form No. 37-I to show that it was effected under compelling circumstances and also the transferor did not get any cash amount from transferee on the date of transfer of immovable property.Ratio:In view of non furnishing of relevant details in Form No. 37-I pointing out distress sale, the order under section 269UD(1), passed after determining fair market value on the basis of comparable sale instances, was valid.Held:In the present c...

Magna Graphics Ltd. Vs. Prakash Sabde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR204; [2006]129CompCas629(Bom); [2005]57SCL29(Bom)

ORDERKhandeparkar R.M.S, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The grievance of the petitioner relates to the wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 1st November, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 2592 of 2001 by the respondent No. 1, inasmuch as, that while disposing of the appeal Under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, on 25th February, 2002 in Appeal/Desk/LNA/131/2001, the respondent No. 1 decided the matter contrary to the judicial pronouncement in the said writ petition to the effect that the change of name of the petitioner-company was not an voluntary act but purely by virtue of operation of law under the provisions of Section 43A(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956.3. The facts relevant for the decision in the matter are that, on 7th June, 1972, the Collector of Mumbai Suburban District granted a lease of land bearing Plot No. 101, C & D admeasuring about 923 sq. metres in area in favour of one Acme Rayon Doubling Mills ...

Sarthi Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT308Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are 100% EOU and based on permission by the Development Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone, they were clearing goods from their 100% EOU. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of gray man made fabrics from polyester twisted yarn. They cleared such fabrics waste of and polyester twisted yarn, which arose during the manufacture received by them from DTA sales. No imported raw material or goods received and/or created by them.2. The lower authorities vide the impugned order held that customs duty amounting to Rs. 11,00,555/- was leviable on such illicit removal of fabrics, polyester twisted yarn, etc which was required to be recovered from the appellants under Section 72 read with proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 28 of Customs Act 1962 along with the interest as applicable and they were liable for penal action under Section 112(A) read with Section 72 and 114A of the Customs Act 1962. The lower authorities after hearing both sides and considering that th...

Shri Alwares Bathelo Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (A), who rejected the appellants appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner and confirmed the absolute confiscation of certain goods of foreign origin seized from his workshop. Besides a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was also imposed.3. It is noticed that, 2 pieces of compressors valued at Rs. 4000/- CIF, MV Rs. 12,000/- along with some other components of car air conditioners of foreign make, were seized by the Customs officers in 1990. The 2 pieces of compressors were allegedly a part of the smuggled goods, which one person name siddique, had in collusion with customs officers, managed to get cleared as unaccompanied baggage, on payment of nominal custom duty, at grossly under declared value. The appellant's plea was that, he purchased the compressors from the said person believing that the said goods are validly imported. In the adjudication order, nothing is forthcoming on record to imp...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mrf Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the revenue's appeal against the order-in-original whereunder the claim of the respondents for Modvat credit in respect of certain capital goods was accepted and the demand notice proposing the denial of credit was dropped. The instant appeal of the revenue therefore pleads for denial of credit.3. I note that the capital goods in question in this are the old machinery and moulds, which the respondents sent to the job workers. It is noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that due to extensive replacement of components and processing carried out on the old machines, the excise officers in charge of the job worker's unit had insisted that the reconditioned capital goods be cleared on payment of duty treating the repair activity to be amounting to manufacture. The excise authorities having jurisdiction over the respondent's unit however, held a view that since the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mahalaxmi Dyeing and Printing (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT309Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (A) who in the impugned order held that the appellants before him were entitled for refund of Rs. 10,07,661/-.2. The Revenue's contention in the appeal are that the respondents did not file any appeal against the order of the Commissioner who fixed the A.C.P. and they had discharged their duty liability during the period 16/12/1998 to 28.2.2000 without demur in accordance with the Annual Capacity of Production fixed by the Commissioner. The Revenue contents that the respondent should have appealed against Annual Capacity of Production fixed by the Commissioner succeeded in such an appeal and then only would have become entitled for refund. It is also contended that the refund claim made on 22.10.2000 for payment made on 15/2/2000 is time barred as such payment was not done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules. It is also the contention that under Section 12B it is the claimant of a ...

Indian Equipment Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are manufacturers of scientific and laboratory equipments and availed Modvat Credit on gas compressors and other compressors used in such scientific equipments. Different numbers of such compressors are used for different models of scientific equipments. Search operations were conducted on 28.07.1992 and documents relevant to the inquiry were taken charge of in the factory premises by the Central Excise Officers. On 21.03.1994 another search was conducted in the factory and physical stock of compressor was taken and was found to be 28. A statement was obtained from the Asstt. Sales Manager about the computation of the use of compressors during the period April 1989 to July 1992 and thereafter a Show Cause Notice was issued. On working out the total number of compressors received / used during the period from April 1989 to July 1992 and based on such conclusions it was found that 1229 compressors were received as inputs.It was alleged that certain compressors received...

Ahmed Juneja Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT231Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. It is the case of the appellants that she was the owner of the vessel in which smuggled goods were found but since she had no knowledge of the smuggling, the vessel should not have been confiscated. Reliance is also placed on the finding of the Adjudicating Commissioner that the appellant was not found liable for penalty. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants also relies on the following case laws :-Shipping Corporation of Saudi Arabia v. Addl Collr. of Customs (Prev.) (3) Additional Collector of Customs v. Mogul Lines Limited - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 349 (Bom.) (5) Allanasons Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.), Mumbai - 2000 (123) E.L.T. 877 (Tribunal) 2. Heard Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R. for the department, who draws attention of the Bench to the fact that the Commissioner has given a categorical finding in Para 4(b) of the order-in-original that the entire episode of smuggling of the foreign exchange in the impugned vessel was "with the knowledge an...

Mayfair Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT191Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the delay of 15 days in filing is satisfactorily explained due to sickness in the family of the Consultant who was assigned the job of filing this appeal and the ld. DR does not object to the contention of the delay. It is found that the duty of Rs. 6,96,985/- and penalty of equivalent amount on the assessee and Rs. 7,00,000/- under Rule 209A on the Director is the consequence of the alleged recovery of Excise duty from the buyers of the goods which were not deposited in the Government treasury but was required under Section 11D is the issue. Prima facie if any amount is recovered representing it to be Excise duty, the same is required to be deposited. However, mandatory penalty of equivalent amount and penalty under Rule 209A are the questions that have to be decided along with the final decision in this case. At this prima facie stage we would order pre-deposit of Rs. 6,96,985/- to meet the requirements of Section 35F of the Central E...