Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Ramakant Atmaram Manjerekar Vs. N.T.C. (M.N.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR106; (2005)ILLJ311Bom; 2004(4)MhLj541

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner was in the employment of Kohinoor Mills from 30th March, 1962. Kohinoor Mills Company Limited Units 1 and 2 and Unit 3 were listed at items 6 and 7 of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983. There is no dispute about the fact that subsequently when the Textile Undertaking were nationalised under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995, the Textile Undertakings of Kohinoor Mills Ltd. was also taken over. The petitioner was in the employment of Kohinoor Mills Ltd. as a Time Keeper Clerk in the Time Office between 30th March, 1962 and 28th April, 1995. The petitioner was a party to a complaint which had been filed jointly with co-employees of Kohinoor Mills complaining of an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Prevention of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, on the ground that thoug...

Ashok Baburao Ingavale and ors. Vs. Pralhad Hari Bhate and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR115; 2005(1)BomCR956; 2005(1)MhLj446

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated April 16, 1981, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision No. MRT MS-XI @ 4/81 (TNC.8.371/81) Pune. The land in question admeasures 7 acres 15 gunthas bearing Gut No. 606, situated at village Kidgaon, taluka and district Satara. The land was originally owned by father of respondent No. 1. The petitioners' predecessor was the tenant in the suit land prior to the tillers' day; On account of that, he became the-deemed purchaser by operation of law. The tenant paid the purchase price, consequent to which certificate under Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was issued in his favour on 28-11-1971. Thereafter, the tenant entered into sale deed in respect of 55 per cent, share in the suit land in favour of Shaikh Akbar Ibrahim on 3rd January, 1972 for consideration. He also entered into a lease deed in respect of r...

Chaliamma R. Konar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR930; (2005)IILLJ229Bom

Kanade V.M., J.1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are challenging the order dated 10-03-1999, 18-3-1999, 6-12-1999, 10-2-2000 and termination order dated 1-5-1998. They are seeking an order of reinstatement with effect from 1-5-1998 with full back wages.2. Petitioners are working in the establishment of respondent No. 2 Director, Central Poultry Breeding Farm, Aarey Milk Colony, Mumbai. Petitioners were working as labourers in or about 1977. Petitioners' case is that after working for about 10 years, they were given status of temporary workmen and, therefore, they acquired protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.3. The case of the petitioners is that since their services were not regularized, they filed an application to the Central Administrative Tribunal (For short 'CAT') being O.A. No. 347 of 1995. Services of the petitioners were terminated without giving any notice and without holding any inquiry. Petitioner...

Wadco Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT184Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant is a declarant assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Executive Assistant to the Managing Director of the assessee company. They are in appeal against the duty demand on the assessee after arriving at the classification of the products side fitment/side packaging under heading 4808.10 and top/bottom covers, partitions, sleeves of corrugated sheets under heading 4819.19 for the period 4.5.94 to 22.7.96 and 4819.12 thereafter and penalty on the assessee equivalent to the duty determined under Section 11 AC read with Rule 173Q and Rs. 20.000/- under Rule 209A on the Executive Assistant.2. Assessee is a manufacturer of various types of corrugated boxes, cartons, cases etc. with or without inherent fitments as per the specifications of the Customers. Prior to Finance Bill, 94-95, all items were exempted vide Notification 48/87 dated 1.3.87 as amended vide Notification 59/88 dated 11.3.88 and there is no dispute prior to 1.3.94. The Notifications were rescinded, co...

Shivkumar Agarwal, Atul Chatwani Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery thereof arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. 7,21,926/- on the consignment of beads and metal chains embedded with stones, confiscated the same, confirmed another amount of Rs. 87,34,122/- being the differential duty on similar goods already cleared, confiscated crystals, glass beads, glass stones etc. seized from the premises of one Shivkumar Agarwal, confiscated Indian currency amounting to Rs. 5,95,000/- seized from the factory premises of the above said person under Section 121 of the Customs Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on him, imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on one Shri Bharat J.Barot and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Atun Chatwani. The goods under dispute are glass crystals, glass beads, cup chains studded with glass crystals, glass stones e...

Shri Ganji Mallaiah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT296Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the impugned order in appeal whereunder their appeal against the order in original was rejected. In the order in original passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs seized Toyoto Cynos Car model CCL, re-valued at Rs. 400886/- was subjected to absolute confiscation, and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the appellants.3. On going through the facts of the case, it is revealed that the subject car, which was imported by the appellants was held as liable to confiscation on the ground that import was in violation of provisions of Public Notice No. 3(RE-2000)1997-2000 dated 31^st March, 2000 issued by the DGFT. It is stated in the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner that, "the DGFT allows import of cars without a licence, to individuals coming to India for permanent settlement after two years' continuous stay abroad. It does not directly stipulate ownership of the vehicle by such individuals, but it contains a no sale condition ...

Dhariwal Inds. Ltd., R.P. Dayama, Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are an assessee under Central Excise Act 1944, and their Managing Director & other employees aggrieved by the same order.Therefore, these appeals were heard and are being disposed by their common order.2.1 The assessee is a manufacture of Pan Masala (Gutka) on which they pay duty. In the course of manufacture of these products, "Masala" is being prepared by mixing various perfumes and chemicals and other compounds as per some secret formula by a process of mixing undertaken by the Managing Director with the assistance of 2/3 workers. It is thereafter despatched to the three units in Metal containers where it is used in the manufacture of Pan Masala. The metal containers contain are said to be returned for reuse. This 'Masala' is called 'Compounds' & "Compound - G" & in 1999-2000 a 'Compound-P' was also manufactured but later discontinued. The classification under chapter 33 & dutibility is not in dispute. Valuations is impugned.2.2 Valuation is being arri...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rama Multitech Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The assessee availed exemption and was visited by a team of Preventive Officers, who found that certain credits availed were not as per law and raised objections. The assessee therefore reversed the following amounts on 10.10.96 Rs. 12284904, on 11.10.1996 Rs. 4466004/-. However, no Show Cause Notice was issued and the assessee on being advised that the reversal made were far in excess of the requirements of law sought refund of the amounts which were got reversed after the visit of the officers. Claims for refund amounting to Rs. 1,31,29,199/- after considering the amounts which the assessee availed was the credit required to be reversed were filed. The same was rejected on the grounds: i) claim of refund is premature since investigation and an offence case registered is pending against the assessee. ii) Refund of credit was not contemplated under Section 11B of the Act.3. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower authority and...

Smt. Smita N. Shah Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94ITD492(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX Mumbai and relates to the assessment year 1998-99.2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal relates to the computation of long-term capital gains.3. We have heard the rival submissions. The dispute is two fold; firstly, whether capital gain can be charged on the forfeited amount of Rs. 21,02,000/-, and secondly, whether the forfeited amount is to be deducted from the cost of acquisition or from the indexed cost of acquisition.4. The property in question was subject to negotiations for its transfer. Assessee did receive advance of Rs. 21,02,000/-. Sale could not be fructified. Resultantly advance was forfeited. Indisputably cost of acquisition amounted to Rs. 9,40,416/-. AO while computing the capital gains first worked out the capital gains on the forfeited amount. It amounted to Rs. 11,61,584/-.5. Capital gain was again worked out on the same property when sale took place. Proper...

Shri Dattatraya Sakharam Yeole, Vs. Shri Hafeez MunoroddIn Haji Shaikh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR719; 2004(5)BomCR14; 2005(2)MhLj813

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in substance, takes exception to the order dated June 6, 1981, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nasik Sub Division Nasik in Tenancy Application No. 1 of 1981. Briefly stated, the land in question is Survey No. 726 within Municipal Limits of Nasik. The land is owned by the respondent- Trust. The said Trust is duly registered Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The respondents, therefore, filed application for grant of exemption under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 in respect of the Suit lands. That application has been allowed by the impugned order. Against this decision, the petitioner carried the matter in revision which was, however, dismissed as not maintainable. It is not necessary for this court to go into the question as to whether such revision was maintainable or not because this Writ Petition has been admitted as back as...