Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vvf Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who in the impugned held that the lower authority denied Modvat credit on the inputs on the sole ground that the finished goods were exported and therefore, attracted Nil rate of duty. The Commissioner held that there is no authority to deny the credit under Modvat scheme on inputs used in the manufacture of final product, which was exported. He has also held that Advance Licence Scheme is another law wherein some duty benefit on import material is allowed under a Customs Notification. The Revenue's ground is that since export goods are exempted from payment of duty, the respondents are not entitled for Modvat credit. The Revenue relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of IBP Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise wherein the Tribunal held that final product manufactured by the appellants is not suffering any duty as the goods are supplied to a 100% Export Oriented Unit and therefore a ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pic (Gujarat) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are Revenue's appeals arising out of the orders of the authority below vide which the Original as well as the Appellate Authority held that Orange Fruity, Raspberry Kupple, Mango Fruity, Mango Kupple, Pista Candy etc. manufactured and cleared by them as "other than Ice-Cream" are entitled for benefit of Nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 12/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990 and Notification No. 4/93 dated 28-2-1993.2. None appeared for the Respondents. After hearing the ld. DR, Shri R.B. Pardeshi, we find that in terms of Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 12/90, the goods falling under Chapter Heading 2105.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 attract Nil rate of duty except the goods specified against Serial No. 4 of the said Notification. Serial No. 4 describes the goods as "Ice-Cream". The explanation attached to the Notification is to the effect that, for the purposes of this Notification "Ice-Cream" means those preparations, which are commonly known as Ice-Cream or ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Crosslink Shipbreakers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal of the Revenus is as to whether the Assistant Commissioner was empowered to decide the case having the monetary limit of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. It has been decided by number of decision of the Tribunal that laying down the limit for adjudication by different authorities by the Board is only their internal arrangement and there is no such limit restricting the Board of the officers in terms of relevant provisions of law. Reference in this regard is made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pahwa Chemical Pvt. Ltd v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - 2005 (189) ELT 339 (SC). As such, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same....

Hrushikesh Praharaj Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)BC197

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No. 2. Krushikesh Praharaj being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer P.R.T. I II, Mumbai in Original Application No. 3078 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the original application in favour of the Bank and ordered all the six defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 23,59,911/- together with simple future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The learned Presiding Officer also gave certain consequential declarations absolving the defendant No. 7 from the liability and ordered issuance of recovery certificate in the above stated terms. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed only by defendant No. 2. Hrushikesh Praharaj.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: The defendant No. 1 Konark Computers Pvt. Ltd. is a pr...

Shri Y.J. Patki, Prorietor of Patki and Dadarkar, Chartered Architects ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1151]; (2006)ILLJ677Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Pune dated 6th December 1995 allowing an application filed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this petition has been filed by the employer. By the impugned order the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 76,692/-to the applicant-the present respondent by way of notice pay, retrenchment compensation and bonus. While admitting this petition, stay was granted to the operation of the order subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000/-with the Labour Court and the said amount was allowed to be withdrawn by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Labour Court. It was further clarified that in case the amount deposited was not withdrawn, it shall be invested in a fixed deposit with the Nationalised Bank. When the petition was first taken up for final hearing on 21st July 2005 it was informed for the first time that the respondent-employee is no more. Time was s...

Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR182; 2006(3)BomCR195; 2006(1)MhLj121

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This petition, by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, questions the order of the appellate Bench, hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court', of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in appeal. The Appellate Court has dismissed the petitioner's suit and held that they have no right to recover demurrage charges for a period of 12 months.2. The petitioner sued the respondent, Taparia Tools Limited, for a sum of Rs. 6,459.83 together with interest on Rs. 6,340.94 at 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realisation.3. The facts leading to the suit are that the respondent is a consignee who imported a consignment of six cases of Carbon Steel Bars which was landed in the Port of Bombay from the vessel S.S. Jala Mangala under I.G.M. No. 1009, Item No. 465 dated 21-10-1975. The date of landing was 27-10-1975. The Last Free Day was 31-10-1975 i.e. the day upto which the petitioner would allow the clearance of the goods without charging...

Mohanlal Nevadram Bhatia Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR131; 2006(2)BomCR787; 2006(1)MhLj467

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioner - tenant and Shri Mohta, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 9 landlords and Shri Thakre, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 - State of Maharashtra.2. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 19-11-1982 passed by the Appellate Authority under provisions of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order) and subsequent order passed in review on 30-1-1987. Though the initial application filed by the landlords i.e. present respondents No. 5 to 8 was seeking permission under Clause 13(3)(i) to (vi), the Appellate Authority has granted permission only under Clause 13(3)(ii) viz. Habitual default. The petitioners - tenants applied for review of said order and that review has been rejected and therefore, the tenants are before this Court in the present writ petition. The landlords have not questioned...

MartIn Kerr Roberts and anr. Vs. Macario Antonio Francis De Cunha and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR178; 2006(1)BomCR793

Lodha R.M., J.1. Heard Mr. Valmiki Menezes, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Rule is heard finally at this stage.3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th April, 2004 whereby the IInd Addl. District Judge, North Goa, Panaji rejected the application made by the present petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the Order dated 6th September, 2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Mapusa.4. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.35/ 01/E. They made an application for grant of temporary injunction against the defendants (the respondents herein). The trial Court vide its order dated 6.9.2003 dismissed the application made by the plaintiffs petitioners for grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal was preferred on 17.11.2003. Since the appeal was barred by time, a civil application for con...

Damodar Mangalji and Co. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom41; 2006(1)ALLMR643

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The original plaintiffs are in appeal being dissatisfied with the judgment and Decree dated 13-10-1995 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao, whereby the plaintiffs suit for declaration that the defendants are bound to indemnify the plaintiffs under the Insurance Policy dated 24-12-1969 in respect of the claim against the plaintiffs by reasons of any loss or damage caused due to the operation of the barge 'M.V. Prabhat' to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- came to be dismissed.2. On 2-11-1972, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants (the respondents herein). The plaintiffs set up the case that they were owners of the barge known as 'M.V. Prabhat (MRH 126).' By an Agreement dated 6-8-1969 the plaintiffs agreed to sell the said barge to Prakashchand Jain and Jivanmal Jain for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-, payable in installments stipulated in the said agreement. The possession of the barge was given to the purchasers on the date of t...

Dattaram A. Awate Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)DMC737

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard. Rule, by consent rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By the present Petition the petitioner is seeking the order of transfer of investigation in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2003 pending before the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri, pertaining to C.R. No. 70 of 2001 of Chiplun Police Station to Special Branch of C.I.D., Mumbai or any other investigating agency on the ground that the investigation made by local Chiplun Police Station as well as District C.I.D. is carried out not only in haphazard manner, but to hush up the crime by suppressing the facts and destroying material pieces of evidence as well as with the intention to protect the accused contrary to the provisions of law.3. At this juncture we may note that the impugned incident took place within the jurisdiction of Chiplun Police Station, District Ratnagiri, the complaint was lodged at Guhagar Police Station, which was transferred to Chiplun Police Station where investigation was commenced by the local police. Ho...