Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Diwaliben Mohanlal Mehta Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After allowing all the stay petitions, we propose to take up the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue lies in a narrow compass.2. The exemption was claimed by the appellants in respect of the imported goods in terms of the provisions of Notification No.148/94-Cus dated 13/07/94, as amended inasmuch as the goods were imported by a charitable organisation, as free gift and were meant for free distribution amongst the poor person. As per conditions V to Serial No. 1 of the notification, the appellants are to submit a certificate to the proper officer within a period of six months from the date of importation or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner may allow, to the effect that the said goods have been distributed to the poor and needy free of cost without any distinction of caste, creed or race. There is no dispute that the said certificate was submitted by the appellants. However, the disputed issue is that the certificate was not issued within six months time, as stipul...

Blow Plast Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that the goods namely, work station and office furniture systems manufactured by M/s Blow Plast Limited are classifiable under Chapter heading 94.03 of CETA; confirmed an amount of Rs. 52,35,216/- as duty leviable on such goods and imposed an equal amount of duty. The period of dispute is 1997-98 to 2000-01.2. The appellant receives orders from various customers and arranges to install office furniture systems in the customers' premises. It is the Department's contention that such installation of furniture systems/work station amounts to manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter heading 94.03 of Central Excise Tariff Act; that the appellant failed to register himself as manufacturer of excisable goods and that the applicant did nor discharge the duty leviable on the said goods.4. The Ld. ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Nirma Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After rejecting the stay petition, we take up the appeal itself as the issue is decided.2. Vide his impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the original authority. The revenue's only contention is that Commissioner (Appeals) was not having any powers to remand the matter after amendment to Section 35A(3). Ld. DR appearing for the revenue fairly agrees that the issue stands decided by the Honourable High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vis. Medico Labs reported in 2004(173)ELT 117(Guj) = (2004-TIOL-39-HC-AHM-CX) . In the said decision, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) have powers to remand even after amendment of Section 35A(3). In view of the above decision, we do not find any merits in the revenue appeal and reject the same....

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri K.M. George Kutty @ Raju and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC825; 2007ACJ359; 2005(4)ALLMR42; 2005(4)BomCR29; 2005(3)MhLj440

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the tribunal i.e. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag dated 28.11.1997 by which compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- was awarded to the respondent/claimant. 2. Mr. Hegade, appearing for the respondent/claimant, raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : [2002]SUPP2SCR456 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors.]. It is with reference to Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides as;'Section 170 :- Impleading insurer in certain cases --- Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that--(a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or(b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, di...

R. Venkatesan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj337

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant had filed application for discharge before the Trial Court in respect of a pending trial against him for offences punishable under the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. That Application has been rejected by the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay by Judgment and Order dated November 20, 2003, essentially on the ground that the Applicant cannot be heard on his discharge application because he is an absconding accused. It is matter of record that proclamation proceedings were taken out and order has been passed against the Applicant in that behalf. Besides, non-bailable warrants are pending against the Applicant in connection with the trial, which is pending before the lower Court since 1998. The Applicant has so far successfully avoided arrest and is stated to be residing in U.S.A. 3. The moot question, therefore, which arises for my consideration is: whether any fault can be found with ...

Akruti Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR601; 2005(4)BomCR32; 2005(3)MhLj684

Deshpande D.G., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appeal is filed by the builder challenging the order of the Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31-3-2000 in Appeal No. 19 of 2000 under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and in which the order of assessment passed by the respondents Officer on 10-8-1999 was in question. That order of the respondents was refusal to entertain the complaint of the appellants and confirming rateable value.3. Following are the facts giving rise to the disputed question :A huge slum was existing on plot bearing C.T.S. Nos. 426 (part) 428 to 430, 432 to 437, Saiwadi Village, Andheri (East), Mumbai, K/East Ward. It was proposed to implement a scheme for slum rehabilitation by the Government of Maharashtra under Development Control Rules, 33(5) to 33(1). The letter of intent therefore was given by the SRA-Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the appellants. The entire land on which the slum was situated was ow...

Kirit Dahayabhai Shah and ors. Vs. Chetan Kantilal Sheth and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2427

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By the order dated 13th August, 2004, the Judge of the City Civil Court charged the noticees (present respondents) that by filing the second suit and not making honest disclosure to the Court and taking steps for situation entries, the noticees have interfered with the due process of judicial proceedings and interfered with the administration of justice. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court by his order made reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.2. On 27-10-2004, this Court issued notices to the respondents. All the three contemnors have been served. The contemnor No. 3 has filed this affidavit.3. The contemnor No. 1-Chetan Kantilal Shah filed S.C. Suit No. 40 of 2001 in the Bombay City Civil Court. Amongst the 15 defendants, the first defendant Smt. Babliben is the mother in law of the plaintiff-contemnor No. 1. The other defendants being defendant Nos. 2 to 14 were said to be claiming themselves as persons interested in the subject property...

Dattatraya S/O Waman Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ594Bom; 2005(3)MhLj675

N.H. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by conduction of departmental enquiry against him and consequential imposition of punishment.2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Cashier in State Bank of India on 22nd October, 1960. He worked in the said capacity till September, 1974. He was promoted as Office In charge at Dondgaon Sub-Office of State Bank of India. Thereafter he was promoted as Officer Grade II. He worked as Accountant for one and half years and was thereafter made Field Officer and was transferred to Dongerkheda. The petitioner was appointed as Branch Officer of Agricultural Development Bank. It is contended that on 1-1-1977 he was promoted as Sub-Accountant and was transferred and posted to Kamgaon Branch. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred from Dongerkheda Agricultural Development Bank and was posted at Aurangabad Branch and while he was serving at Aurangabad he was suspended by an order dated 7-1-1982.3. A departmental enquiry was instituted ag...

Air India Ltd. Vs. L.R. Solanki and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR429; 2005(5)BomCR241; 2005(3)MhLj974

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This petition is directed against an order of the National Industrial Tribunal of 22nd July, 2004 declining to grant its approval upon an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The first respondent was appointed as a Sweeper in the inflight Service Department of Air India on 4th October, 1977 and was confirmed in service with effect from 1st October, 1978. On 1st October, 1991, he was promoted as Handyman (Safai) and was deemed to have been confirmed with effect from 1st July, 1991. On 30th October, 1993, the first respondent was on duty in the third shift commencing from 2300 hours in the Catering and Cabin Service of Air India at Mumbai Airport. An incident is alleged to have taken place in which the first respondent, along with an employee by the name of S. V. Godambe who was an Assistant Cabin Supervisor proceeded in a Jeep towards an Aircraft, VT-EEO, which had operated Flight AI-710 from Dubai to Mumbai and which was park...

Bank of India Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR865; [2006(107)FLR1019]; 2005(4)MhLj115

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Rohit Deo, Advocate for the workmen and Shri Jaiswal, Advocate for the employer-Bank.2. Both these writ petitions challenge the award dated 26-8-1991 delivered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Bombay in Reference No. CGIT-2/40 of 1987 and 36 of 1988. The second reference is covering 15 workmen while the first reference is covering only one workman. By the impugned award, CGIT has ordered regularisation of these employees as sub-staff in the employment of Bank of India with effect from 30-6-1988. The 16 workmen dissatisfied with this date, have filed Writ Petition No. 1522 of 1992 contending that the said benefit ought to have been from 11-10-1985. The employer-Bank of India has, during the pendency of said reference, granted regularisation from 15-7-1989 or other dates to all these 16 workmen and it has filed Writ Petition No. 85 of 1992 stating that date 30-6-1988 mentioned above in the award by the Tribunal is incorrect and sa...