Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. M. Ramarao and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR113; 2004(5)BomCR1; 2004(4)MhLj1031

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition illustrates not only the lack of propriety and polity smacking of indiscipline but is also contrary to the directives of the Supreme Court and Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India.2. The Life Insurance Corporation of India - a statutory Corporation established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 is the petitioner before us. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the demand of service tax in respect of renewal commission, hereditary commission and terminated agents commission and levy of consequential interest and penalty by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein. The controversy raised in the writ petition by the petitioner, an arm and instrumentality of the Government is against the Department of Central Excise of the Government of India.3. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. vs . Collector of Central Excise : 1992(61)ELT3(SC) , the Supreme Court observed that the di...

Anandilal Ganesh Podar Society and anr. Vs. Mrs. V. Chakravarti and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR160; (2005)107BOMLR947; [2005(105)FLR141]; 2005(1)MhLj480

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The first petitioner claims to be established and administered by a linguistic minority and therefore, to be entitled to the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. The petitioner conducts several educational institutions including Seth Anandilal Podar High School and Junior College at Santacruz (West), Mumbai. The first respondent joined the aforesaid school in 1981 as an Assistant Teacher in the English Medium. In March, 1987, the first respondent, was appointed as a Supervisor. On 6th June, 1989, the first respondent addressed a letter to the Director of the Management stating that she was tendering her resignation with a request that she be relieved immediately. The first respondent stated that she was ready to pay compensation in lieu of notice and sought 'a good reference'. The resignation of the first respondent was accepted by the management on 13th June, 1989, subject however to the payment of three months' salary in lieu of the period of notice. O...

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. Nuclear Power Corpn. of India Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR352(Bom); 2005(1)BomCR833

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. Leave to amend as per the draft amendments tendered in Court. The amendments shall be carried out within four weeks from today.2. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner seeks orders restraining the respondent from in any manner giving any effect and/or further effect to its notice dated 10th June, 2004 and from insisting on the performance of any part or portion of the contracts entered into between the parties through a sub-contractor and from in any manner preventing the petitioner from doing the same by itself. By the amendment the petitioner has sought an injunction restraining the respondent from invoking the bank guarantees issued at the petitioner's instance under the terms of the contracts. The interim reliefs are in terms of the aforesaid reliefs.3. The petitioner and the respondent entered into four agreements for the supply by the petitioner to the respondent of heavy water upgrading and waste mana...

Hitkari Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigad, confirmed the demand of Rs. 17,34,188/- and ordered appropriation of the same, apart from imposing equivalent amount of penalty and interest. Further, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-under Rule 173Q read with Rules 57CC(5)/57AD(2)(a) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2001 and read with the Rules 25, 26 and 27 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001.2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai. The appellant did not dispute the issue in principle or merit about the reversal of proportionate Modvat credit on the input (fuel) being used for exempted or non-duty finished goods. They have also made payment of duty on this count. They have also accepted the interest liability only for the period from May, 2001 to December, 2001. Thus, the dispute remained in respect of imposition of two separate penalties under Section 11AC as well ...

Sharp Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

a) Appellant is an assessee under Central Excise Act, 1944 availing Modvat and paying duty. They were issued a notice dated. 2.7.2003. i) demanding duty on shortage of inputs involving credit of Rs. 48,627/- ii) On equalized freight not added in the assessable value, a duty demand of Rs. 2,12,568/- to be made. iii) Duty demands made of Rs. 29,32,395/- on cylinder development charges recovered from customers and not added to assessment value. iv) And Modvat Credit on inputs reversed to group companies, as inputs, on which credit was required to be reversed on value of 115% as per valuation rules and not equivalent to credit availed. Recovery under this head was of Rs. 19,49,945/-. b) During the investigation a sum of Rs. 22,10,740/- was deposited. The original authority after hearing the assessee, dropped the demand of Rs. 19,49,545/- on inputs transferred to group companies and confirmed the remaining demands amounting to Rs. 31,07,419/- imposed a penalty of equivalent amount and orde...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Deluxe Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The Revenue is in appeal. M/s. Deluxe Exports imported goods declared as HDPE grade 267=79 of Russian origin vide invoice No. 95/057 dated 9.3.95 @ US $ 700 pmt CFT against contract No.5042 dated 3.2.95.2. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Group II-B, enhanced the value of the goods @ US $ 870 pmt (CIF) in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with GATT Valuation Rules, 1988.3. On filing appeal, the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), Jawahar Custom House, Nhava-Sheva, set aside the Order-in-Original and ordered refund. Hence this appeal by Revenue.4. In the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (61) RLT 602 (SC) in the case of C.C.E., Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographies India Ltd., it is observed that Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11B of CEA, 1944 make it clear distinction between making or ordering refund by the proper officer and claim of refund by a person. In regard to the duty paid under protest under pr...

Wyeth Lederle Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard. The issue involved is about classification of goods imported and exemption to Notification 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97.2. M/s. Cyanamid India Ltd., Mumbai, have imported 10,000 kg. of Cygro 2% (Maduramicin Ammonium 2% Premix) valued at CIF Rs. 21,64,200/-, ex-vessel Pacific and have filed Bill of Entry dated 15-4-97 for the home consumption, claiming classification of the said goods under CTH 3003.90 with the concessional rate of duty under Notification 11/97-Cus., Sr. No. 18, list 1, item No. 20, which covers Maduramicin Ammonium.3. A Show Cause Notice dated 16-7-97 was issued to the importer proposing - (2) Denial of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 11/97-Cus., Sr. No. 18, list 1, item No. 20.4. On due enquiry, the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, classified the goods under Headings 2909 and 2309 of Customs and Central Excise Tariff and claim for concessional rate of duty held to be inadmissible.5. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed and...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dani Exports Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT36Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in arriving at clarification of Dodecyl Benzene (Commercial) under tariff heading 2902. Revenue seeks the classification under heading 38.17.00 of the Customs Tariff relaying upon decision reported in 1997 (95) ELT A73, wherein appeal filed by Mayur Chemicals was dismissed and the Tribunals findings of Dodecyl Benzene to be covered under Chapter 38 and not 27 was upheld. They also rely upon decision in case of Kamal Traders reported at 1986(24) ELT 702.2. Before proceeding to determine the classification of an entity, it is required to first determine as to what the entity in it's entirety is. Proceeding to decide that, in this case, entity described in the Import documentation is Dodecyl Benzene (Commercial), it is found that I.I.T., Mumbai test result, as per grounds of appeal reveal it to be-Prof. M.V. PANDYA Phone: 5782545 Extn. 8193M.Sc Ph.D Gram : Technology, Mumbai-76.Ext. Consultant Telex : 011-72313IIT...

Hyundai Unitech Electrical Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT421Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the appellant's appeal was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) was dealing with the appeal filed by the appellants against the letter dated 07/11/2000. The letter was issued by the Inspector of Central Excise, for Superintendent of Central Excise Division, Buti Bori, rejecting the request for provisional assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to reject the appeal, holding that, since there is no appelable order issued by the lower authority, the appeal filed by the appellants can not be entertained under Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act.2. The appellants have placed on record also a copy of the order dated 1/09/2000 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-11, Nagpur, informing the appellants that there is no merit in the request for provisional assessment of RT-12. This was in response to the communication, the appellants addressed to the Assistant Commissioner ...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Oil Field Instrumentation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR100; 2004(4)MhLj258

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, filed under Section 34 read with Section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the said Act') the petitioner is challenging the Awards dated 2nd August, 1999 and 30th June, 2001 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.2. The facts giving rise to this petition, as narrated in the petition, are as under :--(i) The disputes arise under Contract No. BRBC/EBG/MAT/SCON/ MLU/KC (VS)/ 94/EYC-68 (hereinafter referred to as 'Contract No. EYC-68') dated 30th September, 1994 for operation and maintenance of 6 Mud Logging Units.(ii) Mud Logging Services are required for monitoring various Drilling, Geological, Gas and Mud parameters of the wells being drilled by various offshore rigs of the petitioner. Mud Logging operations are of crucial and vital importance to the petitioner for (i) data collection and analysis on continuous basis, (ii) Monitoring of drilling operations on a continuous basis and (i...