Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Balkrishna Dnyanoba Bankar Vs. Kisan Sawalram Padwal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007ACJ42

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. The matter was heard by me earlier. Time was given to the parties for settlement. The counsel for the appellant states that settlement is not possible. Advocate Mr. Vidyarthi for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is present. Nobody is present for other respondents.2. Appellant is the owner of the vehicle. The Extra Joint District Judge, Pune has saddled this owner with compensation of Rs. 2,58,400 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The manner in which the accident occurred is very peculiar and that in itself supports the contention of the appellant owner that in any case he cannot be held liable for this accident.3. The appellant owned a truck bearing No. MHF 7872. Deceased was the son of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The de ceased was in employment of the appellant as driver. He was driving the said truck on 17.5.1992. As per the case of the claimants, the truck hit a stone on the road in the darkness of night as a result of which joint rod was disl...

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, thro' Director General and Anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR807]; (2006)IILLJ383Bom

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Heard Ms. Maldhure, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4.3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated January 17, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby the Original Application preferred by Respondents 1 to 4 came to be allowed and the recovery from the salary of Respondents towards the excess payment of transportation allowance for the period August 1, 1997 to February 21, 2002 was quashed. The counsel for the Petitioner states that the City of Nagpur enjoyed the status of class A till July 31, 1997 and was downgraded to B-1 status, however the employees were paid transportation allowance of A class city from August 1, 1997 to February 21, 2002. It is contended that though at the relevant time Nagpur City had B-1 status, the recovery which is initiated by the Petitioners for excess payment made to the Respondent...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Agarwal Trimmings

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The issue relates to eligibility of knitted/crocheted fabrics manufactured by the respondents to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.109/86-C.E dated 27th February, 1986.2. We have heard the Id. SDR and perused the records, as none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. The Notification No. 109/86 grants benefit of exemption to Woven Pile fabrics and Chenile fabrics, Tufted Textile fabrics and Knitted or Crocheted fabrics falling under Heading 58.01 or 60.01 of the schedule to CETA, 1985. The goods in question have been found to be printed/crochet pile fabrics. The adjudicating authority has relied upon Chapter Note 1(c) of Chapter 60 to hold that Knitted/Crocheted fabrics are not covered under Chapter 60. However, we find that, the same note stipulates that Knitted/Crocheted and Chenile pile fabrics will remain under Chapter 60. Since the goods are admitted...

Balu India Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC586

2. The appellants have imported a consignment of second hand disposal diesel engines of 132 pieces and claimed exemption under Notification No. 204/92-Cus dated 19.5.1992 against the Advance License dated 03.10.1994. The proper officer of Customs in terms of the Advance License did not levy any duty at the time of importation of the goods.The appellants had claimed that the imports were for reconditioning of diesel engines from the factory and for re-exportation. After the goods were cleared on the said Advance License to their factory. However, the appellants submit that it was not found viable to recondition the imported diesel engines and they had approached the DGFT for cancellation of the license and the said license was cancelled. The question, therefore, in this case would be whether the goods which have been at the time of clearance from the Customs House, claimed exemption under Notification No. 204/92-Cus were made according to the law duty free or not. The license has subse...

Rolex Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of forgings falling under Chapter Heading 72.08 of the Schedule to CETA. During the period 1986-87 and 1987-88 the appellants manufactured forgings of iron and steel on his own account and on job work also. The Departments' allegation was that the appellant exceeded the limit of Rs. 15 lakhs under Notification No.175/86 when the value of goods on the above accounts were added and therefore was liable to pay duty on all goods cleared in excess of the value of Rs. 15 lakhs in a financial year. The appellant agreed that the goods manufactured by him fall under Tariff Item 7308.90 and paid duty payable on goods falling under this heading for the year 1887-88.A show cause notice was however issued asking the appellant to explain why duty of Rs. 1,30,986.35 on goods falling under Chapter Heading 7308.90 manufactured during the year 1986-87 should not be demanded and why penalties should not be imposed.2. The notice was adjudicated upon by Additional Collec...

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indian Seamless Steels and Allo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR481; (2005)107BOMLR921; 2005(190)ELT12(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. These reference applications are filed at the instance of Revenue on the ground that substantial question of law arises from the order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) dated 13th February, 1998, requiring the following question of law to be referred for the considered opinion of this Court:'Whether the material handling equipment, tubes and pipes etc. which were neither used in the manufacture of final product nor used for carrying out any process and bringing about change in the final product, will fall under the purview of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Act, 1944 for extending the capital goods credit?'The Facts :2. The question sought to be referred in both these applications is one and the same. A common judgment can dispose of both these applications. However, for the sake of convenience the facts are drawn from Central Excise Application No. 5/1998.3. The respondent-assessee availed credi...

Kellogg India Private Limited. and Vs. Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR64; 2005(6)BomCR492; (2005)107BOMLR890; 2006(193)ELT385(Bom); 2007[8]STR84

V.C.Daga, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of dispute between the petitioners and the Central Excise Department (respondents herein), which centers around the question: whether the product of the petitioners, viz. 'CHOCOS' is classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading No.1904.10 or Chapter Sub-heading No.1804.00 of the Tariff ActFactual Background:2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual background relevant to the present dispute is as follows:3. The petitioner No.1 -M/s.Kelloggs India Private Limited is engaged, inter alia; in manufacture of excisable goods falling under the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985 ('Tariff Act' for short).4. It appears that the samples of the product of the petitioners known as 'CHOCOS' were analysed by the Deputy Chief Chemist, Central Excise, Mumbai; whose test reports dated 10th March, 1996 and 19th March, 1996 revealed amongst others that the content of 'cocoa' therein exceeded the minimum limit of 6%...

People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (Pest) by Its Convenor Dr. Ro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR728; (2005)107BOMLR914

1. This bench was constituted to consider two questions framed by the Division Bench of this Court addressing itself to the menace or problem and danger created by existence of stray dogs in the State of Maharashtra and Goa. Basically, the reference was required because subsequent division bench then that which presided in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998 thought it fit that certain provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act have not been placed before the division bench deciding Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998. 2. However, during the pendency of this petition the judgment and Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998 was affirmed by Supreme Court of India and thereafter the Government of India issued rules under the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960 for Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. Substantially these rules were brought into existence to give statutory effect to the guidelines given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1998. 3. Further we are informed today th...

Tushar Tanna Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR579; (2005)107BOMLR1027; (2006)203CTR(Bom)426; [2006]284ITR453(Bom)

V.C. Daga J.1. The sole question common to all the references is based on identical facts, arising out of common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, (The Tribunal' for short) for the A.Y. 1980-81, in relation to the assessees, who happened to be members of the same family. The question referred by the Tribunal for our opinion reads as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authority was justified in holding that the profit earned on sale of gold bonds arose from an adventure in the nature of trade and was, therefore, liable to tax as Business Income.?The Facts:2. The facts in these references revolve around transaction which is practically identical in case of each assessee. The factual matrix of which is not in dispute. The consolidated facts narrated hereafter, taken from the statement of facts forwarded by the Tribunal, are as under:3. Shri Tushar N. Tanna, HUF on 30.11.1978 entered into a contract for the purchase of 2%...

Sheetal Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR136; 2008[11]STR219

V.C. Daga, J.1. The question which arises in this case is whether the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has a power to condone delay beyond 60 days.The Facts:2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under:The petitioner is a manufacturer of industrial lubricants, availing benefit of Nil rate of effective duty for export under Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 ('the Rules') framed under Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act') Against the export obligation for the goods intended to be cleared for the export he was supposed to file the proof having exported the goods within 180 days from the date of export.3. The petitioner claims to have cleared five consignments for export but has neither submitted the proof of export within prescribed period of 180 days of export nor could he submit the same during the pendency of the adjudication proceeding, which culminated in orders in Original dated 20.1.2002 and dated 28.3.2003, served on ...