Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Daewoo Motors (i) Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)BC163

1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/third party Union of India through Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EPCG) being aggrieved by the common order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai in Misc. Application Nos. 8 and 9 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected both the applications.Prayers made by the appellants vide those applications were, that permission be granted to the Customs officers to confiscate the property, which was in the custody of the Court Receiver appointed, for Government dues, as they had got priority and that direction be issued to the Court Receiver/Recovery Officer not to advertise for sale of the properties of the defendant No. 1 Daewoo Motors India Limited, pending and disposal of the appeal on Inward Number 692 of 2004 (Appeal No.114/2005) preferred by the Union of India against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai ...

Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Bifora Watch Co. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)94ITD203(Mum.)

1. The learned Members of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench Mumbai on account of difference have referred the following question for consideration under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the plea taken by the assessee before the Tribunal in regard to Investment Allowances are admissible under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and whether on that basis the adjustment made by the A.O. under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be deleted by the Tribunal." 2. From the reference it appears that question has been referred in both the assessment years i.e. assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 but alleged disallowance of Rs. 2,31,49,567/- through "adjustment" under Section 143(1)(a) of investment allowance is involved only in assessment year 1989-90 and not in the other assessment year. The learned representatives of the parties also agreed that the difference between learned Members...

international Airports Authority of India Vs. Shri Bhimrao Chandappa D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR257

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellants and the Respondents. 2. Respondents are original defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiffs -Respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing its exclusive possession of the suit property. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and therefore the Appellants International Airports Authority of India has filed their appeal. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was in exclusive, use, occupation of a total area of 7840.35 sq. meters from different survey numbers i.e. 158.75 sq. meters from CTS No. 289, 560 sq. meters from CTS No. 270 and 6221.06 sq. meters from CTS No.271 lying and situate at Opposite Green Villa, Village Asalfa, Ghatkopar (West), Bombay. On this vast land there is only structure of 20 x 60 sq.ft. i.e. called 'the suit premises'. The plaintiff was required to file this suit because the defendants started construction of boundary wall over this area and this was acc...

Citizens for a Just Society, Through Its Vice President, K. Pullaiah V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR20; 2005(5)BomCR316

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. This public interest petition has been preferred by Citizens For A Just Society, a social organisation founded by Dr. Usha Mehta, a Gandhian.2. The issue involved in this petition is regarding the apprehension expressed arising from the post- Tsunami concern. According to the petitioners, on December 26, 2004, Tsunami devastated the east and west coasts of southern India and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The public concern is on account of the experts once again reminding publicly on the likely dangers from the geological fault- line running at the middle of Thane Creek which separates Mumbai from New Mumbai cities. 3. A further public concern is from the fact that a huge nuclear establishment is located on the west bank of Thane Creek with known geological fault line and the land mass of thickly populated Mumbai being actually of seven islands joined from reclamation. 4. The petitioners mention that on the west bank of Thane Creek is located Bhabha Atomic R...

Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs. Shri Umashankar Pandey,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR211; 2006(2)BomCR398

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the record and proceedings received as per the order . passed on 24.1.2005. The Petitioners-Company has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in Application (IT) No. 1 of 2002 filed in Reference (IT) No. 37 of 1992. It was an application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Petitioner-company and the same has been dismissed, as a result of which the dismissal order dated 21.2.2002 stands set aside.2. Rule. Mrs. Dutta waives service for the Respondent. Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith for final disposal.3. Brief facts leading to the impugned order and which are not disputed, could be summarised as under:The Respondent was in the employment of the Petitioner-Company as a semi skilled-A Grade Worker and was a confirmed employee. He was sanctioned leave from 13.6.2000 to 24.6.2000 and ...

All India Central Government Health Scheme Employees Association and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR400]; (2006)ILLJ798Bom; 2005(4)MhLj939

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner No. 1 Union and petitioner No. 2 its members, challenged communication dated 22-6-1992, by which the respondents have sought to recover salary paid to the petitioners during strike in the month of May, 1992 and June, 1992.2. I have heard Advocate Kukdey for petitioner and Advocate A. B. Choudhari, for respondents. Advocate Kukdey, states that there was a settlement between the parties in relation to the said strike and as per the settlement dated 11-6-1992, the period of strike was to be treated as 'dies non'. He states that it was not agreed between the parties that for the period of strike the principle of no work no pay was to be applied, and as such the employees have been rightly paid their salary for the month of May, 1992 and June, 1992. He contends that as such the communication dated 22-6-1992, by which the recovery as sought to be made for all the salary paid for that peri...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Remosons Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is Revenue's appeal against the order Schedule to CETA 1985.the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of bicycle control cables which are parts of bicycle parts which in turn are exempt from payment of duty. A dispute arose on the classification of bicycle control cables. The lower original authority ruled that the said goods are classifiable under chapter Heading 73.20. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) decided that the goods in question are classifiable under 87.17 as bicycle parts. In the impugned order the Commissioner two appeals filed before him open passed by an Assistant commissioner and another by a Dy. Commissioner holding that the goods are classifiable under 73.20.2. The revenue's grouse is that the assessee availed of credit of duty paid on the inputs that have gone into the manufacture of intermediate goods. (Iron and Steel Spring Coated PVC falling under Chapter Heading 73.20 according to the Department), which (intermediate goods) ware used in turn in the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT215Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present application has been filed by the Respondent on the ground that the Tribunal by condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue has committed the error, inasmuch as it was not having any power to condone the delay.2. Nobody is present on behalf of the Respondent. After hearing the learned JDR, I do not find any merits in the above contention of the respondent inasmuch as the condonation of delay cannot be considered to be an error on the face of the records requiring any rectification.Accordingly, ROM is rejected....

Gujchem International and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications for stay and waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded against M/s. Gujchem International, Gujarat Impex and M/s.Nandesari Rasayanee Ltd. and penalties imposed under Section 11AC of equal amount and penalties imposed on Shri K.K. Agarwal and Shri Vijay L. Chalke, arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. The period of dispute is 95-96 to 97-98. After hearing both sides for some time we find it possible with the consent of both the parties to decide the appeals themselves at this stage. We waive the pre-deposit of duties and penalties and proceed to decide the appeals.2. The facts briefly are that M/s. Gujchem International and M/s.Gujarat Impex are engaged in procuring excisable goods from various manufacturers, without payment of Central Excise duty for export. M/s.Nandesari Rasayanee Ltd. is engaged in production and clearance of excisable goods and in addition also export the finished excisable goods of other manufacturers as merchant ex...

Seasons Polymers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,90,644/- and penalty of equal amount, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence with the consent of both sides and after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to do so.2. Against the confirmation of duty demand on dies & moulds and imposition of penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). He has, however, held that since the Order-in-Original was received by the appellants on 21.7.04, the appeal filed on 20.09.2004 is beyond the statutory period of limitation.According to the Commissioner(Appeals), the last date for filing the appeal was on 19.09.2004. Since 19.9.04 was Sunday, the appeal could not have been filed on that date but it was filed only on next date that is on 20.9.2004 and there is no delay. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner(Appeals) for fresh decision on merits o...