Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Victor John Gomes (Since Deceased Ms. Maggi Wd/O. Late Victor John Gom ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom92; 2006(1)BomCR1; 2006(1)MhLj796

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 17, 1996, passed by the learned motion Judge appointing Court Receiver in respect of the estate of the deceased John Domnic Gomes.2. John Domnic Gomes had two wives. He fathered five sons. Thomas and Robert were born out of the wedlock of the first wife. Victor, Paul and Ochie were born from the second wife. John happened to have big estate. He was owner of 17 chawls. He also had jewellery and cash deposited in the fixed deposit. John died on October 9,1993. He is said to have executed a Will on October 7, 1993 bequeathing his entire estate to three sons (Victor, Paul and Ochie) from the second wife. The testamentary petition for probate of the Will dated October 7, 1993 was filed by Victor, Paul and Ochie. Thomas and Robert, the two sons from the first wife entered caveat. The caveators took out notice of motion for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the estate of the deceased. It was alleged that the estat...

Joint Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR836; [2006(110)FLR331]; (2006)IILLJ598Bom; 2006(3)MhLj505

R.C. Chavan, J.1. By this appeal Joint Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation challenges order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, restraining the Corporation from claiming contribution from respondent M/s Satish Motors in terms of the appellant's letter dated 23-1-1989.2. The facts in the context of which the appeal has arisen are as under : M/s Satish Motors is an establishment employing number of workmen at Akola which is a place to which the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act undoubtedly apply. Under the Act, it is necessary for the establishment which are covered to register with the Corporation and make contributions as prescribed. The Act also enables the Corporation to appoint inspectors to visit the establishment, examine records of the establishment and make necessary reports. Accordingly the Corporation seems to have issued a notice on 8th August, 1986 whereby the Corporation informed the respondent that on the basis of i...

Ramdas Ramrao Parika Vs. Local Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR824; [2006(111)FLR938]

Chavan R.C., J.1. This is an appeal by employer challenging partial rejection by the Industrial Court at Akola of his application objecting to recovery of dues sought by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). According to the employer the appeal involves substantial question of failure of the Industrial Court to consider important evidence which has a direct bearing on the disputed issues resulting in a magnirudenal error.2. The facts in the context of which this appeal has arisen could be recounted as under:The appellant runs a canteen at the State Transport Bus Stand at Akola and has two licences of running a canteen as well as hawking his wares at the S.T. Stand. The Employees State Insurance Corporation informed the appellant that his establishment was covered by the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act from May, 1986, to October, 1989 also and demanded recovery of contribution with interest and damages. The employer, therefore, applied to the Industrial Court seeking...

Bayaka Mahalinga Keripale and anr. Vs. Balwant @ Suresh Hari Gokhale a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR48; 2006(6)BomCR452

Mohite R.S., J.1. This petition impugns a Judgment and order dated 20.11.1990 passed by the member of MRT Pune camp, at Kolhapur in Revision Application No. MRT. SS. 97/1987. By the impugned Judgment and order the member of MRT allowed the revision application and set aside the two Judgments and orders passed by the lower authorities. He accepted a surrender of tenancy made by original petitioner-tenant in her application dated 22.10.1984 and held that the original respondent Balwant Gokhale before the Tribunal being the landlord was entitled to possession. It is an admitted position before me that the order of the MRT was implemented and the original landlord Balwant Gokhale took possession on 10.7.1998 immediately after the Judgment of the MRT and prior to his death.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:(a) Land bearing Gut No. 170/1 of village Takali, Dist. Sangli belonged to the original respondent Balwant Suresh Hari Gokhale who was the landlord thereof. The original petitio...

Hardware Trading Corporation Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants herein assail an order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva dated 15-2-2005 which confirms the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, CFS(M), Mulund (E), Mumbai. M/s. Hardware Trading Corporation, Mumbai (Appellants) are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, pesticides, etc. falling under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Heading Act. They also engaged in trading of imported Boric Acid. The appellants imported a consignment of 20 MTs of Boric Acid. They initially filed a bill of entry for warehousing dated 29-11-04 and later on filed a bill of entry of Home consumption, seeking clearance thereof under DFRC Scheme. The eligibility for clearance of DFRC was under examination before the concerned authorities of customs. The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 61/2004, dated 28-10-2004 clarified that 'Boric Acid' being an "Insecticide" mentioned in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 196...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC621

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the reduction of penalty imposed on the respondents. Shri M.K. Srivastava, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that as per the Section 76 of the Service Tax Act, the minimum penalty prescribed is Rs. 100/- per day which is the mandatory penalty. While reducing the penalty to Rs. 200/- per week, the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of the said Section 76. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the period of delay in the matter.2. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in para 4 of the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded sufficient reasons for reducing the penalty amount. Besides, Section 80 of the Service Tax Act gives discretionary power to the Commissioner (Appeals) not to impose or to reduce the penalty. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given sufficient reasons for reducing the penalty as such, there is no need to ...

Kellogg India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR for the revenue, we find that Modvat credit of Rs. 25,200/- has been disallowed to the appellant in respect of "Trolly Bin Hopper" on the ground that the same being material handling equipment cannot be considered to be modvatable goods. However, we find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. H.E.G. Ltd. - 2002 (51) RLT 434 (CEGAT-Del.) as also in the case of CCE, Salem v. Cheran Spinners has held that material handling equipments are eligible for the purpose of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q. As such, we hold that such credit was admissible to the appellant.2. Duty of Rs. 50,400/- has been confirmed in respect of quality control samples which were taken out of the production batch prior to the stage of accounting production. Appellant has referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Dabur India Ltd. 2005 (...

In Re: I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as IGPL for short) are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of "Phthalic Anhydride" falling under Chapter Sub Heading 2917.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also permitted to sell certain quantities of their final product in the Domestic Tariff Area (hereinafter referred to as DTA for short) by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai in terms of the Exim Policy. They are manufacturing and clearing the said goods to DTA on payment of concessional rate of duty in terms of Serial No. 3 to Notification 23/03-CE dated 31.3.2003 (earlier Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997).2. The notification prescribed that the goods cleared to DTA would be exempted as per rates prescribed therein subject to the condition that the said goods sold in DTA were only manufactured out of indegenuous raw materials. The benefit is not eligible if the same is manufactured out of imported and indigenous raw materials.3. T...

Tanzeem Screenarts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Tanzeem Screen Arts registered themselves with Central Excise Department as manufacture of printed sheets falling under Chapter Heading 49.01 of the Schedule to CETA, But what they failed to disclose according to the Commissioner whose order is now being challenged, is that they (TSA) manufactured glow signs falling under Chapter Heading 94.05. A glow sign generally consists of a printed sheet on which all sort of words or symbols are printed, a box or a case with a permanent light fitting, into which the sheet is fitted. When illuminated (switched on) the glow sign will encourage or discourage the viewer from doing or not doing a particular thing, depending on what is printed on the sheet. The appellants are accused of manufacturing such signboards and clearing them without payment of duty. Extended period of limitation is involved. The period invoked is 1997-98 and 1998-99. A sum of Rs. 2,39,452,39 (Rupees Two lacs thirty-nine thousand four hundred fifty-two and paise thirty...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Revenue has come in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the respondents has received less input but they have claimed credit on the entire quantity. The appellant has paid the duty on full quantity.3. The ld. Counsel for the respondents points out that subject to transit/handling losses allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) hardly to the extent of 0.71 and the Benzene is volatile and susceptible to evaporation. He submits that this is carrying loss as well. While allowing the said loss the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal:Bhoruka Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2001 (116) ELT 583 (T). (c) Sree Meenatchi Alluminium Extrusions Ltd. v. CCE, Madurai - 2003 (59) RLT 781 (CESTAT-Che.).Kerala State Electronic Corporation v. Collr. Central Excise Kochi 4. Thus in view of the above, I do not find any extra-ordinary situation which may call for interference in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The appeal ...