Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), has upheld the assesses/respondents claim for classification of Alginic Acid and Sodium Algin(sic) under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had classified these goods under Tariff Item No. 15A(1), having been specifically mentioned there under.2. We heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records as none represented the respondents in spite of notice. Tariff Item No. 15A covers "artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials, and other materials and articles specified below namely :- [I] Condensation, Polycondensation and Polyaddition products,--;other high polymers, artificial resins and artificial plastic materials, including alginic acid, its salts and esters;--" (Sodium Alginate Salt of Alginic Acid).3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the definition of Synthetic Resins in Hawley Condensed Chemi...

Gomaco (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT538Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who has held that special discount of 12% to original equipment manufacturers is not admissible as deduction under the Customs Valuation Rules and is required to be added to the value declared for the purpose of Customs valuation.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of today's date having been noted by the appellants representative; hence we heard Id. DR and perused the records.3. In terms of Rule 4(2) (b), the transaction value of imported goods can be rejected if their sale or price is subject to some condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods being valued. In the present case the price was subject to the condition that the goods were used by original equipment manufacturer.In other words the discount was available only if the goods were used by O.E. manufacturers. Hence the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the transaction value and ad...

ispat Metallics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT32Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,94,464/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who has upheld the order of the Jt. Commissioner who had held that Cenvat credit on capital goods namely "Cold Briquetting Plant" which is used for conversion of fine ores into briquettes is not admissible, as the process of briquetting is not manufacture under the Central Excise Act, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner v. Ispat Chrome Ltd. [2001 (134) E.L.T. 236 (Tri. - Kolkata)].2. We have heard both sides. In view of the clear language of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the applicants have not made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit, as the rules stipulate that credit can be taken on duty paid inputs or capital goods received by the manufacturer for use in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, and final products has been defined as excisable goods. We...

Milind Vinayak Pandye Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2006)BC140

1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No, 5 being aggrieved by the order dated 26th May, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 84 of 2004 in Original Application No. 51 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant/defendant No. 5 praying for granting injunction against defendant (co-defendant) Nos. 2 and 7 and other colludcrs/conspiralors from transferring, encumbering, alienating or dealing in any manner whatsoever with the assets of the defendant No. 1 company and for other reliefs.2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Deo for the appellant. Mr. Bhambhalani for the respondent No. 1, Mr. S.G. Deshpande for the respondent Nos. 2 and 7. I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer was right in rejecting the said application made by the appellant praying for injunction against th...

Rekha Murlidhar Fatnani and anr. Vs. Canara Bank

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR505; [2004(102)FLR1056]; (2004)IIILLJ846Bom; 2004(3)MhLj885

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of late M. T. Fatnani who was employed with the respondent Bank and expired in office on 30th March, 2001 whilst on duty. The case of the petitioners is as under :The respondent is a nationalised Bank and is an instrumentality of the State. By a circular bearing No. 235/2000 dated December 11, 2000 the respondent Bank introduced a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The said Scheme was in operation for one month from 1st January 2001 to 31st January 2001. In terms of the said Scheme, employees who intended to seek voluntary retirement were required to submit duly completed applications as per the proforma annexed to the said circular. These applications were to be forwarded to their respective staff sections through their respective Branches/Offices where they worked, so as to reach the concerned staff section before 31st January, 2001.Late M. T. Fatnani opted for the voluntary retirement Scheme and submitted his applica...

V.L. Mahajan and anr. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR258; 2004(6)BomCR736; 2004(3)MhLj1030

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents.2. Writ Petition is directed against the communications dated 1-11-1990 whereby the security deposit in respect of contract allotted to the petitioners was forfeited and the name of the petitioners was blacklisted. The petitioners were also informed that they shall not be given any works henceforth.3. Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners at the relevant time were the partners of V.V. Constructions Company, dealing in construction work. The said firm was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioners company was doing construction work for Zilla Parishad, Wardha, for a long time and because of their satisfactory execution of work, their tender for the following works was accepted :i) The construction of staff quarters for Primary Health Centre at Kannamwar Gram, pay group No. 2, estimated rate Rs. 2,07,315...

Veritas Exports a Sole Proprietory Concern Vs. Union of India (Uoi), T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(102)ECC91; 2005(184)ELT341(Bom)

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the record.2. The short point for consideration which arises in the matter is whether the bank accounts of the petitioners which were freezed by the respondents can be allowed to remain in the same condition i.e. indefinitely freezed by the respondents without compliance of the provisions of law contained in Section 124 r/w 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter called as 'the said Act').3. Few facts relevant for the decision in the matter are that on or about 7th September, 1996 the petitioners premises were searched by the officers from the Customs Department and various goods including the documents pertaining to the bank accounts of the petitioners which included those of the Account No. 22021 in Bank of India, Breach Candy Branch at Mumbai, Account No. 1991 in Indian Overseas Bank, Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai and Account No. 74638 of Bank of Baroda, Clock Tower Branch at Ludhiana were seized by them. Consequent to the seizer of the doc...

Lalchand Manrupji Parmar Vs. Panvel Industrial Co.Op. Estate Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR387; 2004(6)BomCR726

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, dated January 27, 1989 in Appeal No. 52 of 1987. Briefly stated, the Petitioner, along with Respondent No. 2, who happens to be his brother, were jointly allotted Plot No. 81 by the Respondent No. 1 Society. The allotment was obviously subject to certain compliances to be done by the allottees: inter alia, that the allottees should commence their unit within a period of six months after the allotment of shed is made. The joint allotment in favour of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was made some time in 1974. However, since the said requirement was not complied with, Respondent No. 1 Society had sent intimation to the Petitioner on 30th December 1978 followed by letters dated 8th January 1979, 30th January 1979, 16th May 1979 and 30th July 1980. Eventually, the allotment came to be canc...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Urmila Wd/O Sudhakar Gangare and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj637

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant M/s New India Assurance Company Limited, whereby challenged the award dated 13-3-1985, in Claim Petition No. 9/1982, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, granting of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, if beyond the restricted liability of Rs. 50,000/-2. An accident took place on 17-8-1981 of one Dr. Sudhakar Ganjare, who expired on 20-8-1981. On 11-2-1982, a claim petition was filed by his widow Urmila and minor son Abhijit claimed Rs. 1,00,000/-. Appellant herein, original respondent No. 3, resisted the claims and submitted to it's statutory liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only). No appeal is filed by the owner this appeal is filed by appellant Insurance Company, only.3. As the controversy is restricted to the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company, the basic facts are not in dispute, hence this appeal can be disposed of without going into the details and further merits...

Engineering Workers Association Vs. J.D. Jamdar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR479

Mhatre Nishita, J. 1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court passed in a complaint filed under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint and has come to the conclusion that the petitioners were unable to prove that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed unfair labour practice. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :The company that is respondent No. 2 was carrying on business of the Grease Division in Mumbai Steel Containers Ltd. and Industrial Containers Ltd. were merged with the respondent company in 1975. After merger, this was known as Container Division. Both the Container Division and the Grease Division were treated as separate entities by the respondent company. According to the respondent-company, after the merger the service conditions which prevailed in the erstwhile Steel Containers Ltd. applied to the Container Division. These conditions of service were stipulated...