Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Kakda Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No. S/1115-1120/WZB/2004/C-I dated 30.9.2005, the bench directed pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs towards duty and Rs. 25 lakhs towards penalty by M/s. Kakda Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. within a period of eight weeks. Compliance was to be reported on 15.12 2004. The matter was adjourned from time to time. When the matter came up on 23.3.2005, learned counsel drew our attention to the order dated 23.3.2005 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3322 of 2004 filed by M/s. Kakda Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., which reads as under:- 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the CESTAT dated September 30, 2004 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/-towards duty and Rs. 25,00,000/- towards penalty against the total demand of Rs. 4,54,34,776/- and penalty of equal amount. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Nankani that the Tribunal ought not to have ordered pre-deposit in...

Raymond Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT514Tri(Mum.)bai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President 1. A common issue relating to availment of modvat credit on inputs arises in these appeals which are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In Appeal No. E/1365/04 covering the period October, 1997 to December, 1997 the total credit disallowed is Rs. 28,12,019/-. Penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been imposed. The grounds for disallowing the credit are as under :- (i) An amount of Rs. 21,63,776 has been disallowed on the ground that it was taken on the strength of invoice not marked as "Duplicate for Transporter"; (ii) Rs. 6,40,212 has been disallowed as taken on returned goods sent back, after reprocessing, on the ground that returned goods were not inputs and that the invoices on the basis of which the credit was taken were not endorsed in favour of the assessee; (iii) Credit of Rs. 8031/- has been disallowed as representing Cenvat taken on cancelled invoice.3. In Appeal No. E/1366/04 covering the period Jan.98 to March, 98 the to...

Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT149Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 30,43,892/- together with interest against M/s Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') towards differential amount of duty short paid on clearances of pre-recorded cassettes made on job work basis for their clients during the period from 01/03/1997 to 08/09/1997, on an application of extended period of limitation, ordered confiscation of pre-recorded audio cassettes seized from the premises of M/s Impact (C & F Agents of M/s Polygram (India) Limited, one of the clients of the assessee) with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine, ordered confiscation of pre-recorded audio cassettes seized from the premises of the assessee with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine and imposed penalties in accordance with the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as under:- 2. The demand has been c...

M.G. Bhide Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj659

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition though filed under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India, prays for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 25.4.1996 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial court at Pune in Complaint (ULP) No. 416 of 1996 and it further prays for a declaration that the petitioner was the workman of the respondent-company and for a further declaration that he was a permanent employee entitled for a consequential benefits of wages and other allowances. If regards be had to the reliefs prayed for and the law laid down in Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited b. Shankarprasad, : (1999)IILLJ600SC , it is clear that the petition is one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Brief facts leading to this petition could be stated as under:Complaint (ULP) No. 416 of 1992 came to be filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Court at Pune under Item Nos. 5,6,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (the Act for short) praying for...

Avinash Anant Vaidya Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR79; 2005(4)BomCR594; (2006)ILLJ489Bom; 2005(3)MhLj479

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Avinash Anant Vaidya is the petitioner before us. He was working as Sales Manager since the year 1995 with M/s.Kopran Limited having its office at 1076, Parijat House, Worli, Mumbai (hereinafter to be referred as 'Employer'). The petitioner and the employer were contributing the provident fund. As a Sales Manager, the petitioner was entrusted with the activities of the sales. He had a touring job and would tour various States for promotion of the sales. The petitioner met with an accident at Dadar Railway Station on 25.6.2000 while coming to Mumbai by Barelly-Dadar Express after finishing his work. He was taken to K.E.M.Hospital by railway police. On 7.7.2000 he was transferred to Lifeline Hospital, Nashik and was discharged on 31.8.2000. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the petitioner's both legs were amputated. Since he was unable to do the work and discharge his duties, the unfortunate circumstances left no choice for him but to resign from his ...

Majid Ahmedbhai Oomerbhoy Vs. Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and ors. and the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR215

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. Both these Chamber Summons are challenging the order passed by the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai on 25th June 2003. Both the challenges are exactly identically opposite to each other. The Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff being Chamber Summons 1336 of 2003 seeks enhancement of the Royalty amount fixed by the Court Receiver under the impugned order whereas the Chamber Summons dated 1488 of 2003 initiated by the defendant no.1 who is in possession of one of the properties seeks to reduce the royalty amount fixed by the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai, In view of the fact that both these Chamber Summons are challenging the same order passed by the Court Receiver, I propose to dispose of both of them together. Some of the material facts for the determination of the present Chamber Summons without going into the unnecessary details are as under:2. There are disputes and differences between the plaintiff and defendants pertaining to the family properties, t...

Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR466

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Demand notices issued for collection of octroi duty by first respondent Municipal Corporation of Nashik. First respondent Corporation is constituted under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Hereinafter referred to as BPMC Act).2. First petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged inter alia in the business of manufacture of scooter/ and passenger car tyres. First petitioner has its factory at Nashik which was within the jurisdiction of the erstwhile Satpur New Township Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Council). It is not disputed that Municipal Council has levied octroi duty in respect of several goods specified in Octroi schedule dated 1st October 1981 issued under Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules 1968 and brought from outside within municipal limits of the said municipal council.3. It is ...

Rhone Poulene (India) Ltd. Vs. Anjali Devrukhar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR413; 2005(4)BomCR619; [2005(106)FLR149]; (2005)IIILLJ166Bom; 2005(2)MhLj1052

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The dispute in the present case falls in a narrow compass. The question before the Court is as to whether the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioner is the Central Government or the State Government for the purposes of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Section 2(a) of the Act defines the expression 'appropriate Government' thus :'(a) 'appropriate Government' means,--(i) in relation to an establishment --(a) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government,(b) having branches in more than one State,(c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government,(d) of a major port, mine, oilfield or railway company, the Central Government,(ii) in any other case, the State Government.' The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have held that the applications for payment of gratuity that were filed by the first respondent and 272 other workmen were maintainable before the Controlling Authority appointed by the S...

Tata Infomedia Limited Vs. Tata Press Employees' Union and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR559; [2006(108)FLR890]; 2005(3)MhLj105

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai on 23rd October, 2001 in a reference to adjudication by which the enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding was held to be fair and proper, but, the finding was declared to be perverse.2. On 19th January, 1991 charge-sheets were issued to ten workmen. A disciplinary proceeding was held in respect of misconducts that were alleged to have been committed on 22nd August, 1990 and 14th September, 1990. In respect of the incident of 22nd August, 1990, the allegation was that the workmen had unauthorizedly left their work place; resorted to an illegal and unjustified stoppage of work and that they had participated in a gherao of the Managing Director and the General Manager in-charge of production. The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 14th September, 1990 during the course of which the workmen are alleged to have instigated other workmen to proceed on an illegal strike. The workmen wer...

Hasmukhlal and Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR179; 2005(2)CTLJ65(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj149

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Chief Engineer (Roads and Development) of the Municipal Corporation floated tenders in June, 2000 for the supply of road metal to the City Western Suburbs and Eastern Suburbs for a period of 12 months upto 9th September, 2001. The petitioner submitted a tender for the supply of crushed metal and machine crushed metal required for building roads for Wards A to E and for the supply of crushed metal with dust for Wards F and G of the Municipal Corporation. The tender quotation was submitted by the petitioner in the month of June, 2000. On 15th September, 2000, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Deputy Chief Engineer (Roads) recording that the quarry owner had declined to supply two items viz., Item No. 4 being 25 mm crushed metal and Item No. 5 being 12.5 mm crushed metal and that, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to stand by the offer in respect of those two items which were quoted for F and G Wards. On 19th September, 2000, the Municipa...