Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT51Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides & on finding & considering that the appeals could be decided. The same are taken up for disposal, after waiver of pre-deposit.2. Appellants are a Company registered as manufacturer under the Central Excise Act 1944, engaged in the texturising of yarn and the Joint Managing Director of the Company, Consequent to the visit of the Central Excise officers on 23.5.1998, the impugned notice dated 4.05.2000 was issued (herein after referred to as "Second Notice") Since another notice dated 19.1.98 had already been issued to the same appellants as herein (herein after referred to as 'First Notice').Appellants are aggrieved by the confirmation of demands by invoking of the extended period by the 'Second Notice" and the imposition of penalties on grounds of demand of Natural Justice. a) The following submission made & the case law relied, would call for setting aside the order & the proceedings consequent to the 'Second Notice'. b) "On perusal of the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sterlite Optical Technologies

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that vide an order dt. April 1995 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi, changed the classification list filed by the respondents herein in regards to waste material by classifying under Chapter Heading 85.44, 74.04, and directed the respondents to pay duty as per the tariff duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner, in appeal before the Tribunal, the impugned order has set aside holding that the scrap is not excisable commodity and it had not been specified in the Central Excise Tariff. On this basis a claim for refund of differential duty of Rs. 31,14,949/- paid under protest on higher rate of duty was directed. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the grounds inter alia that the assessee had availed modvat credit on their inputs which is ultimately went into the waste and scrap cleared on payment of duty while there is no evidence regarding reversal of such modvat credit, and even i...

Shri Basant Kumar JaIn Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Indust ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR772; 2005(1)BomCR246; 2005(2)MhLj950

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2001 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Pune, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, JD, Pimpri, on 17.1.1995 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 1209/89 came to be set aside holding that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit in question.Factual Matrix:2. The appellant herein (the 'plaintiff' for short) filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, SD, Pune, contending that the plot bearing No. A-2 located in H block, MIDC, Pimpri Industrial Estate, Bhosari, Pune, was reserved for industrial purpose. The plaintiff applied for allotment of this plot under Regulation 4(ii) of the MIDC Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 vide his application dated 10.1.1986 in the prescribed form (Ex.49), with a view to establish manufacturing unit. (The said plot is hereinafter referred to as 'suit plot' for the sake of brevity).3. The defendants-respondents (the...

Bajaj Auto Limited and ors. Vs. Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR792; 2006(1)CTLJ383(Bom); 2004(4)MhLj396

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Admit. Shri R. P. Joshi, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 881 of 1999 dated 6th September, 2001, thereby rejecting the application of the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicants approach this Court by way of present Civil Revision Application.3. The factual background giving rise to the filing of the present Civil Revision Application is as under :--That, the respondent No. 1 herein filed a Special Civil Suit No. 881 of 1991 for recovery of Rs. 79,63,99,736/- as damages for breach of contract. It is the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that it is the manufacturer of moulds and high precision plastic component for the industrial application specially for use by automobile industry. It is contended by the plaintiff that it has its manufa...

The Indian Seamless Steels and Alloys Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Darda ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom41; 2004(6)BomCR87; 2005(2)MhLj819

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In June 1993 the first Petitioner established a mini alloy steel plant at Jejuri in the District of Pune and commenced production. On 3rd April, 1993 an agreement was entered into with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board for the supply of power. The Second Schedule to the agreement set out the Conditions and Miscellaneous charges for the Supply of Electricity. Condition 20(c) (vii) provided thus.'20(c)(vii) in the event of the meter being out of order for any reason during any month, the consumption for the month will be determined on the basis of the average consumption over the preceding three months period, and the bill for the month will be prepared accordingly and become payable by the consumer. However in the case of the consumers billed on quarterly or six monthly period basis, the consumption during the period when the meter is out of order will be the same consumption made by him during the preceding quarter/six months period respectively. The f...

Ranjan Manubhai Doctor and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR923; 2005(1)MhLj718

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present petition as trustees of Seth Bhaidas Sakhidas Charity Trust. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property bearing C.T.S. No. 2300 and 2304 of the Bhuleshwar Division and as such are the holders of 3042 sq. meters in C. S. No. 2300 of the Bhuleshwar Division and 134.62 sq. meters in C. S. No. 2304 of the Bhuleshwar Division. By Notification dated 3rd January, 1967 the petitioners properties were notified as reserved for public purpose for recreation ground except for a small strip facing the then named Thakurdwar Road. The development plan for Greater Bombay has been adopted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act. It is averred that a legal notice dated 28th March, 1989 was addressed by their Advocate and served on the Bombay Municipal Corporation and Municipal Commissioner under Section 127 of the MRTP Act for acquisition of the aforesaid ...

Bses Limited Vs. Bombay Electric Workers Union and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)ILLJ462Bom

1. Heard Mr. J.P. Cama, the learned senior counsel for the appellant. Mr. A.V. Bukhari, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S.S. Naphade, the learned senior counsel for the respondents 3 to 6.2. Admit. Heard finally.3. We shall refer the respondents 1 and 2 as the complainants, the present appellant as the employer and the respondents 3 to 6 as the rival Union. In the complaint, the complainants complained of the unfair labour practices under Item No. 5 of Schedule II and Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971 allegedly committed by the employer in entering into the settlement with the rival Union and they prayed that the said settlement be declared as illegal and the employer and the rival Union be restrained by an order or injunction from giving effect to and/or implementing in any manner the said settlement. The complainants moved an application for interim relief and prayed for, inter alia, restraint order against the Registrar appointed under the Bombay I...

Sanjay S/O Pandurang Wagh and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Office ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR150; 2005(1)MhLj1006

K.J. Rohee, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings bearing Land Acquisition Case No. 15/A-65/85-86 of Rengapar, Tahsil and District - Nagpur and prayed for quashing the Notification dated 30-3-1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration dated 16-4-1987 under Section 6 of the said Act as null and void.3. It seems that respondent No. 2 approached respondent No. 1 for acquisition of Survey No. 191/1, 2.33 Hectors and Survey No. 124/2, area 2.17 Hectors of mouza Rengapar, Tahsil and District Nagpur for market development. A resolution to that effect was passed by respondent No. 2 on 2-8-1985. Upon the requisition by respondent No. 2, a preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by respondent No. 1 on 20-3-1986. It was duly...

Amravati District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom249

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This First Appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff/appellant herein, against the original defendants/respondents herein, and thereby challenged the Judgment dated 7-12-1995 whereby the suit of the appellant was dismissed with costs.2. Facts :- The appellant is a Corporate Body, constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and carrying on a business of Banking within the territory of Amravati District and called as Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (for short 'the Bank'). As per the Banks normal practice and in order to save its immovable and immovable properties from loss, they used to take various insurance policies including the policies to cover likely losses arising from fire, burglaries etc. The appellant-Bank, used to take Banker's Blanket Policy (for short 'Banker's Policy), in order to get indemnified in case of losses likely to result for negligence or fraud of its officers, clerks, servants, committed directl...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Blue Star Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein had filed classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for: claiming classification under CETA sub-heading 8418.00 attracting Central Excise duty @ 20% ad valorem vide the Notification 53/93-CE dated 28/02/1993 and 46/94-CE dated 01/03/1994, The department was of the view that the products merit classification under CETA subheading 8415.00 attracting duty @ 30% ad valorem vide the Notification 46/94 dated 01/03/1994 since they are used in air-conditioning systems and therefore 10 show cause notices-cum-demand notices were issued proposing recovery of duty for the period February, 1994 to June, 1997 on the above basis. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed total duty demand of Rs. 1,41,01,000/- by approving the classification under CETA sub-heading 8415.00; the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, accepting the claim of the assessees for classification under CETA sub-heading 8418.00; hence this appeal by the Revenue....