Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Ramchandra Gajanan Bhoi Since Deceased Through His Lrs. Sakuntala Ramc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR452; 2005(1)MhLj252

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment and I proceed to do so by this Judgment.2. This is the third round of proceedings before the High Court between the same parlies. For deciding the point in issue, it will not be necessary for us to burden the judgment with all the events. Briefly stated, land bearing Survey No. 105/1 situated at Phaltan, admeasuring 17 acres and 32 gunthas was held by the predecessor of the petitioners as tenant since prior to the tillers day i.e. 1st August, 1957. It is common ground that the said land originally stood in the name of Ganpatrao Laxmanrao Mohite as the Manager of the joint family of the respondents herein. Mutation entry also reinforces the position that the joint family comprising of Ganpatrao and his Uncle Rangrao, were owners of the suit land. It is not in dispute that the landlords did not initiate proceedings for possession either under Section 29 or Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural La...

Voltas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC487

1. The appellant is an assessee under Central excise Act, 1944 and is engaged in the manufacture of Air Conditioning & Refrigeration equipment. In the course of the manufacture, they obtained duty paid components used by them in the assembly of what was termed an fan by the Department. They availed proforma credit/set off facility and during the period 1982 to 1988, pending the writ Petition No. 261/1981 filed by them in the Hon' be Bombay High Court, paid duty on such 'fans' under protest. The writ Petition was allowed vide Order dated 16.3.1988 holding assembly of impeller and motor did not amount to manufacture of a 'fan' under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 33(3). A Division Bench of the Hon' be Bombay High Court rejected the appeal vide Order dated 20.01.1992.2. Four refund claims filed by the assessee being duty paid on such 'fans' were rejected by the Proper Officer, vide order dated 24.8.95 holding- i) Proforma credit of Rs. 6,71,341 availed was liable to be adjusted against th...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. G.S.F.C. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT191Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Miscellaneous Application No. C/MA/ORS1075/04 has been filed in Miscellaneous Application No. C/MA(EH)876/04 in appeal C/122/04 Mum by the Revenue.2. After hearing Mr M.I. Sethna, Ld Advocate for the Revenue in the Miscellaneous Application C/MA(Ors) 1075/04 and finding, that by this Miscellaneous Application, Revenue has placed, on record a letter dated 1.8.1996 written by me as Commissioner of Customs (Bombay) (the post I held then) addressed to Member (Customs), Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi which reads as follows: Sub :- Exemption of Customs duty under Notfn. No. 90/94-Cus. dtd.1.3.94 for import of capital goods for GSFC's 1350 MTPD Ammonia Project - Clarification - reg. M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (GSFC) are implementing their 1350 MTPD Ammonia Plant at Vadodara, and had applied for registration of their imports under the Project Import benefits. 2. The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Deptt. of Fertilizers, had vide its letter dtd. 20.9....

Avon Appliances Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT465Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants had applied to DGFT for DEEPB scrip entitlement for certain exports made by them, A DEEPB license was obtained & documents were to be verified by the DEPB Section of the Jawahar Custom House Sheva district Raigad. On verification, they were issued a letter dated 11/09/2002, as it was found that they had claimed against Sr No. 353 of product code 61, however as per the General notification No. 12 for DEPB rate the claim were available upto 5% of weight & not at rate of 17% cap value Rs. 125/kg as claimed. An order in adjudication was issued, after hearing by the Dy Commissioner, denying the DEPB benefit against DEPB circular No. 0310153054 dated 12/08/2002. In appeal the CC(Appeal) upheld the order. Hence this appeal.2. The plea of the appellant made before the CC (Appeals) that the Custom Authorities have no jurisdiction to reject the DEPB duty credit to an exporter, who has been issued a DEPB license by DGFT authority & that Custom authority may write to DGF...

Ajai Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ377CAT

1. The present O.A. is filed for quashing the order of suspension of the applicant dated 17.6.2000 and issuing direction to respondents to allow him to reinstate and join service of Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Region, Mumbai with immediate effect and the arrears of subsistence allowance as per Rules with effect from 17.6.2000 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.2. The applicant's case is that he joined the Indian Police Service (IPS) in the year 1982 as a Supy. Asstt. Superintendent of Police and was confirmed into IPS on 1.9.1984. He was working as an Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Mumbai at the relevant time.He was served with the suspension order on or about 18.6.2000. He could know about the reasons only after going through the FIR filed by one Sanjiv Kokil, an Inspector attached to the Byculla Police Station, which falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Byculla Division headed by Assistant Commissioner of Police falling u...

Sudhir Janardhan Desai Vs. Hyphosphite and Co. a Partnership Firm Regi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR30; (2005)ILLJ302Bom; 2004(4)MhLj223

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Both these Writ Petitions are being heard together as the parties involved are common and the facts involved in both the matters are common.2. The Petitioner workman was employed in a partnership firm, namely, Hyphosphite & Co. since February 1973. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of that firm. The services of the workman came to be terminated on 10th June 1979 whereupon he raised a dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. As the firm and its partners did not remain present, though served, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte Award on 29th January 1987 directing the firm and its partners to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and back wages. The firm and its partners refused to comply with the Award and, therefore, the workmen filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for recovery of the dues payable under the Award. This application ...

Maina Khemka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(170)ELT3(Bom)

ORDER1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Mr. A.S. Rao, Advocate waives service for the respondents.3. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, rule is heard finally at this stage.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata dated 29th October, 2002. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Tribunal was not right in observing in its order dated 11th February, 2004 that no financial hardship is pleaded. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in its order dated 22nd February, 2004 seek- ing modification of the order dated 11th February, 2004 the Tribunal misconstrued the judgment of this Court in Baron International Ltd. v. Union of India : 2004(163)ELT150(Bom) .5. On the other hand/ Mr. A.S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondents justified the order passed by the Tribunal.6. The Tribunal was not right in observing in ...

Lelavati Wd/O Mathurdas Vallabhadas and ors. Vs. Vijaykumar Narottam K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR315; 2005(2)BomCR466; 2004(4)MhLj211

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay on 12th July, 1989 in Appeal No. 674 of 1985 allowing the appeal of the respondent-landlords and thereby decreeing their suit for possession.2. The suit property belongs to Thacker Jethabhai Govindji Nivas, a public charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'trust'). The erstwhile trustees of the Trust filed a suit against Mathuradas Vallabhdas (husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5) for possession on the ground that he had acquired suitable residential premises at Milan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (for short Milan Society) after coming into force the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act) and had gone to reside in the said premises. The Trust also claimed possession on other grounds but, they are not pressed before me. The trial Court held t...

Gujarat Sidhee Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appellants, a manufacturer of cement, in all these appeals are aggrieved against the denial of capital goods eligibility and therefore credit under Rule 57Q and Credit eligibility on certain invoices/duty paying documents on the grounds of certain objections. The appellants have given the use, reasons for the denial, the case law subsequent to the denials, which would entitle them to the credit.2. On considerations of the issues and after hearing both sides, the findings on each appeal and issue is arrived as below: a) Appeal No. E/2184/99 Total Amount Rs. 24,05,421/0 Penalty Rs. 5,00,000/- O-in-O No. 62/D/97 Sr No.Items ( As per Sr. No. mentioned in Show cause notice) Grounds for denial of Modvat credit Finding Grease Pump 8467.00 ( Sr. No. June 1 ) Used for greasing does not qualify for CG. Rs.2,545/- Eligible as used for greasing an lubrication of Ihe processed machinery and kiln for the smooth running o: machinery to avoiding interaction am arnnling of machinery Covered b...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Videocon Appliances Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that modvat credit is relatable to inputs used in the manufacture of electric motors for washing machines, is admissible and can be utilised for payment of duty on clearance of washing machines by the respondents herein and that out of the total credit of Rs. 1,45,882.53 only that quantum of credit relatable to inputs used in manufacture of electric motors other than the ones meant for washing machines will be liable to be reversed and reduced the penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- imposed upon the assesses by the Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 1,00,000/-.3. According to the Revenue the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it stood during the period in dispute (March, 1995) did not permit the appellants to avail credit of duty paid on inputs for electric motors only for clearances of electric motors and not for clearances of washing machines. We find that the respondents herein were permitt...