Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Comfort Coolers (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on 4.6.1999 alleging that during the period 1.11.1998 to 10.1.1999, they had availed credit without having the duplicate copy of the duty paying documents for availing such credit. The lower authorities confirmed the demands under Rule 57I along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/-. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority. Hence this appeal.2. After hearing the stay application in this appeal, it transpires that the appeal itself could be disposed off and with the consent of both sides, and after waiver of pre deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal by this order.3. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice does not indicate how the amount of credit, which is said to have been taken, is alleged to be without duty paying documents. Obviously the plea of the appellant, that for the month of November and December, 19...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashpee Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Present two appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Nagpur vide which he has held that the electronic weighbridge manufactured by M/s. Ashbee Systems (P) Ltd. under the order placed by M/s. H.P.C.L. is not excisable inasmuch as they come into existence step by step while being erected at site and as such cannot be considered as "goods" being immovable property. For the above conclusive Commissioner has relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Tata Robins Frasser Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1996 (84) ELT EA 108 and in the case of M/s. Quality Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1995 (56) ECR 209 (SC). The above decision of the Commissioner has been challenged by the Revenue by relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Narne Tulaman Manufacturers pvt. ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1988 (38) ELT 566.2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Vimlesh Kumar, Ld. SDR for the Reve...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Arya Ship Breaking Co. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals of the Revenue are against a common order Passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of two different ship breaking agencies. The respondents in these appeals had imported ships for the purpose of ship breaking activity, and incidentally paid CVD on certain "oils" viz., diesel oil, lubricating oil and fuel oil. The importers had taken Cenvat credit of CVD paid separately on the said "oils". Show cause notices were issued to them proposing to disallow the credits.The original authority upheld the proposal and demanded the duty equivalent to Cenvat credit. It also imposed penalties on the parties.The first appellate authority held that duly equivalent to Cenvat credit of CVD paid on high speed diesel oil or motor spirit was recoverable from the parties. The respondents are not aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The grievance of the department in the present appeals is not clearly discernible from the memorandum of appeal. Ld. DR has, however, ar...

Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that a refund claim of the appellants is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also found that the order of the original authority rejecting the refund claim was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also recorded a finding that the duty in question was paid by the party under protest. In any case, the Commissioner (Appeal) has sanctioned the refund but ordered the amount to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. Heard both sides. The C.A. representing the appellant submits that the refund claim was not liable to be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. In this connection, he relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Industrial Cables (I) Ltd., v. CCE, reported in 2002 (140) ELT 543, wherein it was held to the effect that where duty was paid subsequent to clearance of the goods, there would be no presumption under ...

Shyam Sunder Seth Vs. S.M. Limaye, President, Industrial Court and Ind ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR106; [2005(104)FLR244]; 2004(4)MhLj960

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court at Mumbai dated 15.12.1995 and the order of the Revisional Court dated 6.3.1996. Both the Courts have held that the Labour Court at Mumbai constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 has no jurisdiction to try the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. According to both the courts below, either the Labour Court at Kolkata where the Respondent No. 2 had its Head office or the Labour Court at Ahmedabad would have jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties.2. The Petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 2 company sometime in 1973. The Petitioner was required to work not only for Respondent No. 2 but also for M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass works limited and M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. During this period, the Petitioner worked without giving any cause for complaint to Respondent No. 2. On 12.3.1981, the ...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom458; 2004(4)ALLMR33; 2004(4)BomCR590; 2004(3)MhLj883

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner which is a Government of India undertaking has challenged charging of fees for temporary detention of their goods meant for eventual export.2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, which is the petitioner, is a Government of India undertaking deals in manufacturing and supply of liquified petroleum gas meant for domestic use. For this purpose it has to undergo several functions. One of the requiring function is to test the empty gas cylinder for safety and one such plant of testing is within the local limits of Municipal Corporation of Thane.3. Thane Municipal Corporation charges 6.25% of the value of cylinders as fees for services rendered. The contention of the petitioner is that the Corporation cannot use the power under the Octroi Rules meant for temporary detention and transit of octroi leviable goods for the purposes of charging fees or tax for temporary detention of goods to the eventual export. According to the petitioner, t...

Nalini Narendra Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR352; 2004(4)MhLj171

S.G. Mahajan, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel on both the sides.2. It is the case of the revision-petitioners that in pursuance of the notice issued to them by the Commissioner under Section 134 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, they raised an objection to the proposed amendment of the assessment list in respect of their house situated at Plot No. 14, Dongre Layout, Nagpur. As per the revision-petitioners, it was for the Commissioner to decide the objection by investigating the same under Section 129 of the Act and thereafter to pass the necessary order. However, the Commissioner, without investigating into the matter, issued a bill of demand. This, according to the revision-petitioners, is an implied rejection of their objection. Hence, they filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Act in the District Court, Nagpur. The learned Joint District Judge, Nagpur, by his order dated 6-4-2002, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not main...

Jainabai Wd/O Gangaram Upre and ors. Vs. Ravishankar S/O Sukhdeo Vaira ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR885; 2004(4)MhLj407

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendants have filed this second appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 25-9-1987 passed by the Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 60/1982 whereby the Regular Civil Appeal No. 68/1982 filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the claim of the plaintiff for declaratory relief is set aside and it was declared by the appellate Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit house and he is in possession of the same in his own right as an owner. The appellate Court also dismissed the Regular Civil Appeal No. 68/1982 filed by the original defendants and the decree passed by the trial Court granting permanent injunction was confirmed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :The plaintiff instituted the suit for possession on the basis of title on the contentions that the suit h...

Hemant Shriram Patil Vs. Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj531

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.3. In Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2004, the petitioner seek relief in the form of direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 viz. Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Secretary thereof respectively to hold the regular proceedings of the. Standing Committee, by allowing the petitioner to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the said Corporation and for that the communication dated 26th February, 2004, issued by the Corporation in relation to the proceedings of the meeting held on 9th February, 2004 be quashed as well as for further direction to the Municipal Secretary to follow the procedure laid down for the proceedings for the Standing Committee and the writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No. 3 viz. the Stat...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zuari Finance Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Bom)625; [2004]271ITR538(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the Revenue, filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on May 2, 2001.2. Respondent No. 1 is a limited company engaged, inter alia, in the business of leasing and financing. On December 2, 1996, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), filed a return of its income declaring income of Rs. 3,54,930, during the assessment year 1996-97 on gross receipts of Rs. 6,71,11/527. In the profit and loss account, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 17,02,225 under the head 'Depreciation', in respect of a machine called 'Mechanical Skimmer Oil and Grease Removal System' (for short the 'skimmer machine'). The assessee had shown this machine as its fixed asset and claimed 100% depreciation on it under Rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules. The assessee had also claimed a sum of Rs. 3,95,000 as a business expenditure on...