Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

N.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital Through Its Chairman Dr. Mahavir C. Meh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR10

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2622 of 1995 has been filed by N.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hospital') challenging the order dated 20th January 1995 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Solapur in Revision (ULP) No. 109 of 1993 filed by the Hospital as well as the order dated 18th November 1993 passed by the Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Solapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 212 of 1987. The principle challenge in the Petition is that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have erred in their judgments as a Doctor or Medical Practitioner is not a 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Writ Petition No. 3683 of 1995 has been filed by the Doctor challenging the findings of the Labour Court that he was entitled to only 50% of back wages while granting reinstatement with continuity of service as well as the order of the Industrial Court in Revision.3. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgm...

Vilasrao Sarjerao Patil Vs. Asarondi Panchkroshi Shikshan Prasarak, Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR609; 2004(4)MhLj762

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner (Assistant teacher) and thereby, has challenged the order and judgment dated 27th October, 1989, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai [for short 'Tribunal'], in Appeal No. GEN/71/SND/3 of 1988, whereby, the Tribunal, had allowed the Appeal but only granted the benefit under Section 11(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short 'MEPS Act') and directed to pay six months' salary by way of compensation instead of reinstatement, although the termination order dated 30th March, 1988, of the petitioner was set aside. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, therefore, has basically prayed for reinstatement as permanent Assistant Teacher and all other benefits.2. Beard the learned counsel appearing for the parties The basic issue 'which needs to be answered in this Petition is the right of th...

Sanman Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom94; 2004(4)ALLMR650; 2005(1)BomCR181; 2005(1)MhLj1037

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 4th December, 2003 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General, Registration and Stamps, Mumbai, the respondent No. 2 herein as well as the order dated 28th May, 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondent No. 3 herein, rejecting the claim for refund of stamp duty, which was preferred by the petitioner in terms of section 48(1) read with section 47(c)(5) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'), being contrary to the provisions of law and illegal.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of imports and exports of various types of chemicals and being desirous of purchasing residential flat from the point of view of having accommodation for company's associates and business clients visiting India from abroad, ...

Guru Nanak Industries Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)ACC621; 2005ACJ656; 2005(1)MhLj887

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Whether, the Insurance Company-respondent No. 2 is liable to reimburse the employer-appellant and if yes, to what extent, being the only issue contested in present appeal, many details of the litigation are not required to be reproduced. The appeal arises from the decision in Application W. C. No. 10 of 1987, decided vide judgment and order dated 7-6-1989 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Aurangabad. In the report filed by the Inspector of Factories (Class I). Aurangabad, initially, parents of the deceased Sukhdeo appeared and ultimately the claim was contested by his widow. It is said that, the deceased Sukhdeo was employed with appellant-industry and he died as a result of electrocution on 25-5-1987 at 2.00 p.m. and as such, death is held by the trial Court Judge to be during the course of the employment.The learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 57,264.24 and penalty of 50 per cent, which comes to Rs. 28,63...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parle Biscuits Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Bom)237; [2006]282ITR547(Bom)

1. Heard.2. In the appeal two substantial questions of law have been proposed. The said questions read thus:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 2,28,539 made to the closing stock on account of Modvat credit?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was justified in holding that income from interest, rent, dividend and profit on sale of toothpaste should be included in the eligible profits for working out deduction allowable under Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961?3. As regards proposed question No. 1 learned Counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the controversy stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. : [2003]261ITR275(SC) .4. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, we find that the controversy stands concluded by the judgmen...

Sharadha Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT336Tri(Mum.)bai

1. a) Appellants, an assessee under the Central Excise Act 1944 were having a factory in Rajkot which was visited by the officers in September 1994 and conducted enquiries. 495 Nos of connecting were found excess which was claimed as that days production. The officers also found two registers from the desk of the clerk concerned which contained the details of date, item, quantity and name of buyers of the products, the assessee was engaged in manufacture at these premises.The period of these registers was April 94to August 94. Corresponding entries for/of production for the production and sales as shown in these registers were not shown in the statutory records ie RG1 completed up to 31.8.94.b. A Show Cause notices dated 1.3.95, proposing to recover duty of Rs. 7,22,854/-Plus duty of Rs. 6,352/- on seized (excess good) was issued under Rule9 (2) read with Section 11 A(1) proviso penalty under Rule173 Q was proposed along with penalty under Rule209 A on J.D. Patel, director of the asse...

Superfine Overseas and Falcon Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT868Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Imports of 1/2 "blank Video Cassettes-Panasonic Brand E 180 H.D.A.VMS Palscam of Japanese origin, imported by two separate Importers, were not allowed without an appropriate import licence. The Commissioner found the goods to be falling under heading 85239003.90 of ITC (HSN) Classification, were restricted and were also found to be undervalued based on quotations & proforma Invoices of M/s Akash Electronics LLC(PR) & M/s Mettelsons Steel and Metal Ltd. Values were ordered to be loaded and goods held to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(d) and confiscated. Redemption fines were offered. Penalty was imposed on the importers. Hence these appeals.They are being disposed by this common order.2. After hearing both sides and considering the issues involved it is found a) there is no evidence of any payment / remittance over the. Invoiced values for the Imported goods. No imports of actual goods at value of US $ 1.10 per piece, as per the proforma invoice were ...

Gautam Diagnostic Centre and M.J. Vs. Commissioner of Custom

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are a firm who imported duty free, medical equipments in the year 1988-90 and its Doctor proprietor Imports were made after having applied for and obtaining a certificate from the Director General Health Services, after due verifications, of a Custom Duty Exemption under not 64/88.2. On 21.1.99, Special Branch officers of Bombay Custom House seized the duty free equipment, in use, at the diagnostic centre. Proceedings were initiated on allegations that the importer was only a Diagnostic Centre & had no facility for indoor treatment, & thus was not eligible for the benefit of notification 64/88. Goods seized were ordered to be confiscated, under Section 111(o) 85 redemption fine of Rs. 5,93,624/- & penalties of Rs. 5,12,672/- & Rs. 2,96,812/-were imposed by the Commissioner after finding that duty was not recoverable. Hence these appeals. "Any goods exempted subject to any condition from duty, xxx in respect of which the condition is not observed unless th...

Shamvik Glasstech Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides in this matter. The learned Advocate fairly concedes that Rectification of Mistake application allowed on 14.1.04 specifically re-listed this matter to hear and decide the plea of limitation only and he does not press on merits of eligibility of credit which has been held against them. a) Period of demand is August 91 to June 92 and show cause notice was issued on 27/3/95 and para 10 of this notice states - "10. From the foregoing para if is evident that the 'assessee' have deliberately and wilfully suppressed the fact of availment of modvat credit on spares, mandatory spars, air compressors and shrink wrapping machines on which they did not carry out any manufacturing activity and were not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products with an interest to evade Central Excise duty by incorrectly availing modvat credit on these goods, which were subsequently cleared without payment of Central Excise duty or reversing the modvat credit availed on these good...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Nocil

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) having allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the order of duty and penalty arrived by the lower authority on the assessee, for having removed fully manufactured goods for testing from the Plant to a laboratory without accounting the same in RG 1 register or and discharging the duty thereon the ground - i) order in case of Bhansali Engg. Polymers 1999 (114) ELT 94 relied upon by the Commissioner has not been accepted by the department. ii) Once goods are manufactured they can be remanding on payment of duty. iv) No further Manufacturing process was required in respect of the batch which was sampled.2. When the matter was called, Ld DR relied upon the following decision - The Respondent are absent. Matter is pending since the year 2000. No adjustment request from Respondents. We proceed to decide the issue.Following the above said decisions, we find no reason to exempt the samples from levy of duty. The duty is ...