Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT306Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex by which he has - (a) Confirmed duty demand of Rs. 7,24,808/- on the appellant hospital. (b) Confiscated medical equipment imported by the hospital duty free under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 on the ground of violation of the condition relating to free treatment to indoor as well as out door patient from the hospital, of the table to the notification. (c) Allowed the redemption of the goods confiscated on payment of fine of Rs. 5,02,095/-. (d) Imposed penalties of Rs. 2,51,048/- on the hospital and its secretary under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. We have heard both sides. The undisputed position is that the hospital was charging Rs. 10/- per OPD Patient for case paper and Rs. 20/- per IPD patient for admission and was also charging Rs. 25/- from indoor patients for X-ray, sonography and other test. As per condition No. 2 of the table annexed to the relevant notifi...

indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT431Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal against an Order dated 12-12-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur, filed by the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Chips, Polyester Staple Fibres, Polyester Filament Yarns and Spun (Blended) Yarns falling under Chapters 39, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise [Tariff] Act, 1985.3. The appellants are aggrieved by an Order dated 12-12-2003 passed by the Commissioner demanding a duty amount of Rs. 1,21,32,329/- on following accounts:-------------------------------------------------------------------------Rs. 17,95,160/- Against clearance of furnace oil/mineral oil sludge.------------------------------------------------------------------------Rs. 87,73,169/- Against clearance of waste and scrap arising from the inputs and packing materials of finished goods.------------------------------------------------------------------------Rs. 15,64,000/- Against clearance of waste and scrap arising from the cap...

Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture cold rolled coils/sheets falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to CETA. The allegation is that the appellants during the period 1989-90 to 1993-94 removed selected lengths and widths of CR Sheets misclassifying them under Heading No.7204.90, which is meant for ferrous waste and scrap. The Department's contention is that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 7211.41 as CRCA Sheets of selected length and width. Investigations revealed that whereas the excise documents (gate passes) give the description of the goods as 'waste' private documents (Delivery challan) in respect of the same goods give a different description. The department recovered the delivery challans of which describe the goods as (a) C.R. Bhungli, (b) C.R. Lafa, (c) Side Slits, (d) Gauge Variations (d) Defective coils and (f) Cut Pieces of CR. On the basis of this evidence the department sought to reclassify the impugned goods under 7211.41 as against the classification ad...

Polycab Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 After hearing both sides and finding that the appeal itself could be disposed of, at this stage, after waiver of pre-deposit, the appeal is taken up for disposal.2.1 Appellants have been denied eligibility of credit as the invoice on which the same was to be availed was not an eligible document under rule 7 (1)(b) of the Cenvat Rules since the subsequent duty discharge was alleged to be tainted with the act of a recovery confirmed on penalty on the supplier of the goods.2.2 The Ld. Advocate for the appellants produced the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal no. E/2351, 2352/04 No. A/351, 352/WZB/05-CII dated 21.2.2005, wherein the Bench had found that the duty paid by the manufacturer was on own without the department having pointed out an error as was evident from the notice issued to that manufacturer, after ten months of the payment. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.2.3 Since the subsequent payments of duty by the manufacturer have not been held to be tainted with penalty a...

Cce Vs. Acme Healthcare

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT82Tri(Mum.)bai

1.1 Revenue is in appeal against the order of CCE(A) who has set aside the order of the lower authority on assessment of "Sugar Free Tablets & granules" ordered to be made on MRP based assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for clearance during April 2001 of samples of the goods in regular/normal packages containing 100 tablets to M/s Cadilla Healthcare which was called for as per notification No. 5/2001 CE (NT) dated 1.3.2001. The assessee had cleared the goods on payment of duty on value under Section 4 on advalorem rate under heading 2108.99.1.2 The CCE(A) had taken the view that although MRP was printed on the product but that was not a legal requirement/obligation/statutorily required as subject goods were clearly and conspicuously declared as sample, not for sale, hence provisions of Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976 shall not apply and was covered by Board's Circular No. 625/6/2002-CX dated 28.2.2002.1.3 Samples were shown to us bearing no MRP dec...

Bajirao Jaisingrao Ghadage Vs. Rajaram Yeshwant Chougule and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR669; 2005(5)BomCR674; 2005(3)MhLj1082

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Common Judgment will dispose of all the companion writ petitions, for the question involved is common between the parties. The respondent in the respective writ petition claim to be permanent tenants in respect of the land occupied by them, which were originally Inam land of Class V. Inam was abolished and the land came to be regranted to the predecessor of the petitioner prior to Tillers' Day, i.e. 1st April, 1957. In other words, the predecessor of the petitioner, Smt. Saraswatibai wife of Kedarrao Ghadage, was the occupant landlady of suit land and was widow on the Tillers' Day, who, later on, died in the year, 1975. As the predecessor of the petitioner was widow on the Tillers' Day, the proceedings in respect of the suit lands under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which had commenced before the A.L.T.-1, Tasgaon, were postponed on 8th May, 1961. Accordingly, after the death of pred...

Seema Ganesh Uikey Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC500; 2007ACJ1090; 2005(4)ALLMR919; 2005(5)BomCR117; 2005(4)MhLj559

Patel J.N., J.1. The petitioner is widow of Ganesh Vikey, who has filed this petition seeking compensation for the death of her husband who died in a fatal accident in the compound in the office of the Collector, Nagpur, i.e. respondent No. 2 being crushed under the tree, for herself and on behalf of her children and mother-in law.2. On the fateful day, i.e. 6-8-2002 the petitioner's husband Ganesh Ramdas Vikey, Police Constable Buckle No. 777, who was at the relevant time deputed by Police Department as a bodyguard of Shri Vilasraoji Muttemwar, the then Member of Parliament, happened to visit the office of the Collector at about 3.30 P.M. after completing his duty and fell victim to a tamarind tree in the compound of the office of the Collector which got uprooted and collapsed and crushed him under it. A Toyota Qualis motor car also got damaged with its driver getting trapped into it and one Advocate Shastri had a lucky escape as the tree fell moments after he had alighted from his ve...

Pusaram S/O Dashrathlalji Agrawal and anr. Vs. Ratilal S/O Valji Laddh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR164; 2005(4)MhLj341

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant original plaintiff has challenged the order dated 16-12-2004 passed below Exh.15 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha in Special Civil Suit No. 46/2004, by which said Court held that it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit and returned the plaint to appellant/plaintiff for its presentation to proper Court.2. The present appellant has filed a suit for a specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27-8-2001 by which the present respondents, who are owners of field survey No. 25, Gat No. 3 in sheet number 4(D) and admeasuring 436765 square feet or 40567 sq. mtr., commonly known as Walji Laddha Ginning Factory at Digras town. Total consideration agreed to is Rs. One crore sixty-five lakhs only (Rs. 1,65,00,0007-). The appellant/plaintiff states that from time to time he paid certain amounts to the respondents and, though he was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, the respondents avoided and ultimately, memorand...

Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare and anr. Vs. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR534; 2005(6)BomCR145; [2006(108)FLR411]; (2006)ILLJ920Bom; 2005(4)MhLj1045

A.P. Shah, J.l. The facts of these cases are briefly as follows. The petitioners filed complaints under section 28 read with items l(a)(b),(d)and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, l97l, hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act, before the Industrial Court/ Labour Court for certain reliefs claiming that they are employees of the respondent company. The respondent company in all these writ petitions has disputed the status of the employees and has contended in its written statement that there is no relationship of employer employee with any of the petitioners. The company has contended that the complainants were employed through the contractors and that the issue regarding maintainability of the complaints would have to be decided by the court. During the pendency of these complaints, the judgements in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steel Ltd, : (2001)ILLJ569bSC and in the case of Cipla Ltd...

Omprakash S/O Thakurdas Chitlange and anr. Vs. Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR29; 2006(2)BomCR286; 2005(4)MhLj605

F.I. Rebello, J.1. A declaration has been issued to acquire lands in which the petitioners are interested parties being owners thereof. The present petition is restricted to Survey No. 3/1A situated at Satakbag, Tq. Telhara, Distt. Akola. It is the case of the petitioner that they are using part of the lands for burial of their deceased including fathers and forefathers and there exist two Tombs. In the petition as amended, it is set out that after considering the requirement of land for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired, for different purposes as set out in para No. 11, all are located in part of land under Survey No. 3/2, whereas the remaining acquired lands are still available and lying vacant/unused for want of funds. It is then pointed out that the District Sport Officer, Akola by communication dated 24-6-2004 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot with copy to Municipal Council, Telhara stated that instead of 1.04 Hectare of land allotted for the purpose of said auth...