Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Asha Handicrafts

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) is directed against the order of the Tribunal No. C-IV/1037/WZB/2004 dated 20/02/04. In the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue files this application on the following grounds: (a) The Hon'ble CESTAT in their order dated 20/02/04 has accepted the department's appeal and the same is allowed and consequently the impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside. (b) At the same time CESTAT have observed and in para 2 of the order ruled thus: "Since only one appeal has been filed the same is being treated as appeal only against the main respondent viz. the manufacturer. Consequently, the relief granted to other parties, who were appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) remains unchallenged and have become final". (c) With due respect to Hon'ble CESTAT's aforesaid findings it is to be pointed out that the department has filed another three appeals bearing appe...

Kapoor Machinery Stores Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT102Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application for ROM is against the order of CESTAT in Order No.C-IV/1224/WZB/2004, dated 4-3-2004 in Appeal No. E/521/2001. In the impugned order the ld. Member (T) sitting single rejected the appeal despite the claim of the appellants that in some other appeals involving similar issues the Tribunal has passed orders accepting their submissions.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants use duty paid inputs in the manufacture of two kinds of finished goods (i) Diesel Engines, which are cleared on payment of duty, and (ii) Couple sets, which are cleared without payment of duty. While clearing the latter products the appellants are required to reverse 8% of the value of the goods as provided under Rule 57CC. The appellants' plea was that the inputs were first used in diesel engines, which were captively used in the manufacture of couple sets. Since the inputs were first used only in the manufacture of Diesel Engines and the said Diesel Engines were later used in the couple set...

Synergy Info-sers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is an assessee of Service Tax He filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,07,613/- and Rs. 2,06,327/- on the ground that the paid ST at the rate of 5% on the service rendered by him is not payable in as much as he printed advertisements on the Yellow page of the Telephone Directory because as per CCE Calcutta's Trade Notice No. 99/GL90/CE/PRO/CAL II/99 dtd. 16.9.99 no service tax is payable on such activity. "Under the facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the appellant have not been able to prove that during the period under reference they had not undertaken the activities relating to making or preparations of advertisements, such as designing, visualising, conceptualising etc. as Advertising Agency, in respect of the clients from whom they had taken advertisements for printing & publishing telephone directories/yellow pages. They have also failed to prove that the amounts billed to the clients were not in respect of any of the above sa...

Jagdish Chander Sachdeva Vs. Royal Bombay Yacht Club and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR666; 2005(1)BomCR29; 2005(1)MhLj987

Daga V.C., J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd June, 2003 passed in Notice of Motion No. 3963 of 2002 in S.C Suit No. 6854 of 2002 by the Bombay City Civil Court, whereby the notice of motion was rejected with costs.The Factual Backdrop :2. The factual backdrop, in nutshell, is that the appellant is a permanent member of the respondent club, viz., Royal Bombay Yatch Club (hereinafter referred to as 'the Club' for short) since 1971. According to him, his membership entitled him to allotment of a room for long term stay in the club premises. In 1973, he was allotted room Nos. 49/50 and since then he has been residing there till date. He married in the year 1992. His wife has also been residing with him in the said room since her marriage. According to the appellant, this is the only place of him for his residence in Mumbai.3. The genesis of the dispute, which is the subject-matter of the present litigation, is that the appellant did not shift, for the period f...

Air India Limited Vs. Jagdish Gursahani and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR276

Rebello F.I., J.1. The petitioners by the present petition impugns the order dated 23rd July, 1999 whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, held that the enquiry against the respondent No. 1 herein is neither fair nor legal and the findings are perverse and granted an opportunity to the petitioners herein to prove the charges against the respondent No. 1, as also the subsequent order dated 20th December, 2002 passed in a review application made by the respondent No. 1 herein. By the order in review the learned Presiding Officer considering his earlier findings that the petitioner herein had failed to pay one month's wages in lieu of notice recalled its earlier order and refused to grant approval to the petitioners herein for the action of dismissal against the respondent No. 1. It may be made clear that the finding is that there was a shortfall in the payment of one month's wages as the increase in wages by the settlement of 31st December, 1995...

Snowcem India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]124CompCas161(Bom); [2005]60SCL50(Bom)

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956, as amended with effect from December 13, 2000, by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000. The petitioners pray that Section 274(1)(g) be declared illegal, invalid, null, void and unenforceable.2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under :3. The first petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale, inter alia, of cement based paints, brazing paste and plastic emulsion paints. The first petitioner was a profit-making company till 2000-2001. It is incorporated in the petition that the petitioners have started facing a serious shortage of working capital and they were compelled to borrow monies from banks and financial institutions. It is further incorporated that at present, there are a total of 1085 fixed deposits outstanding for repayment, totalling Rs. 2.63 crores. It is stated that for deposits up to Rs. 25,000, t...

Shashikala Vasant Baviskar and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation for City ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj1086

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, leave to delete petitioner No. 23 is granted as she has already filed separate Writ Petition bearing No. 4581/2004.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.4. The Counsel for the respondents waive service for the respective respondent.5. As a common question of law and fact is involved in both the petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.6. All the petitioners are Primary Teachers. The petitioners initially were, admittedly, the employees of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, and were working as Teachers in Primary Schools. As a result of extension of the area of operation of the respondents/Municipal Corporation (the then Municipal Council), Jalgaon,'' various schools which were under the administration and control of Zilla Parishad, were brought under the control of the M...

Indian Farmers Fertiliser Vs. the Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of spares for stitching machine. The bill of entry in respect of serial Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were assessed under Customs tariff heading 8452.90, but the benefit of Notification No. 172/89 dated 29/05/89 was not extended to these items.The clearing agent of the importer's filed a refund claim for refund of Rs. 3,51,009/- on the ground that the benefit of the Notification above mentioned was available to the goods in question; the claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Refund Section, by order dated 11/10/93 on the ground that the refund claim filed by CHA without any authority from the importers was not maintainable. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order dated 31/03/94 accepted the contention of the appellants that the Assistant Collector had passed the impugned order without granting an opportunity of hearing and he hence set aside the Assistant Collector's order dated 11/10/93 and r...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshan Bi Magdum and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)ACC409; 2005ACJ117

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Admit. Respondent No. 1 waives service. Service on other respondents is dispensed with. Taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has taken exception to the judgment and award dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned District Judge and Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane. By the said judgment and award, a compensation of Rs. 2,15,000 has been granted in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on account of death of one Allabux Jamadar in a motor accident. Respondent No. 1 is the mother of the deceased who filed the claim petition. Respondent No. 3 is the widow of the deceased, who was opponent No. 3 in the claim petition. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Respondent No. 1 in her claim petition alleged that the vehicle in question was validly insured with the appellant insurance company on the date of the accident. The challenge in this appeal to the impugned judgment and aw...

Paul Niklav Rodrigues (deceased by L.Rs.) and Anr. Vs. Anthony Domnic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom114; 2005(1)ALLMR678

R.S. Mohite, J. 1. By these two Letters Patent Appeals, the appellants have impugned the common judgment and order and consequent decrees dated 13-12-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 762 of 1986 and First Appeal No. 742 of 1986. The aforesaid two first appeals arose from the judgment and decree passed in S.C. Suit No. 6412 of 1989 and SC Suit No. 3694 of 1970.2. Since both the appeals arise from common facts, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The brief facts of the case were as under,(A) One Manual Soz was the owner of a property bearing Municipal House No. 277 situate at Old Kurla, Bombay-70 ('suit property' for short). The said Manual Soz expired in 1990 leaving behind his wife Teresa.(B) On 25-4-1935, Teresa agreed to sell the suit property to a third party by name Pawlu Francis for an amount of Rs. 800/- and accepted Rs. 300/- as earnest money.(C) In 1936 Teresa expired. In 1937 Pawlu filed a suit being Reg. Civil S...