Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Standard Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT476Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue pertains to valuation of trade samples of textile for free distribution to prospective customers to get the orders of processed fabrics.2. The appellant's contention is that such trade samples have length of less than 50 cms and, therefore, should be considered as fents and the value declared for such fents should be the basis for assessment. The department's contention is that such trade samples constitute fabrics made out of the standard length and proportionate value of the standard fabrics should be ascribed to trade samples.4. There are conflicting decisions on the issue of valuation of trade samples. The Tribunal in the case of Morarjee Goculdas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., held that these trade samples of textile fabrics are akin to `fents' and `rags' and not bolts of goods quality textile and therefore the question of applying pro rata of good quality fabrics under Rule 4 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 does not arise. In contrast to this decision, the Tribu...

Kundan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants. Heard Ld. DR and considered the material.2. It is found that the assessee were visited by the Central Excise Officers on 10-9-1997 & they were asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on the remarks that there was clearance of goods without payment of duty which required the duty discharged of Rs. 1.5 lakhs.The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs Under Section 11 AC. In appeal, the CCEA confirmed the order of Additional Commissioner. Hence this appeal.3. The demand has been made up on a statement dated 10-7-1997 of Shri Saboo T John of the appellants. There are no details on record as regards the quantity, value or period or removal/manufacture of the alleged goods removed without payment of duty due. Admissions on part of Manager would not be sufficient to consider to determine the quantities, removal without payment of duty without corroboration in this case. I...

Siltap Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT461Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is denial of refund claim. Both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground of unjust enrichment.2. The contention of the assessee is that though the goods were sold initially passing the incidence of duty along with sale price, subsequently credit note of the duty has been issued to the purchaser, which alleged to be the conclusive proof of not passing the incidence of duty.3. The Notification No. 2/2001 CE dated 27.01.2001 gives exemption in duty if the goods are supplied to the victims of earthquake in the State of Gujarat, subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down in the Notification.4. According to the assessee, all the conditions have been fulfilled by producing a certificate from the Dist. Collector about the supply of the goods to the Society, which is rendering help to the victims of the earthquake.5. The ld. counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision reported ...

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority Vs. the State of Mahar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR812; 2005(4)MhLj893

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Minister for State (Revenue) dated 27/08/2004 in proceedings No. LPO 34/2003/748/Matter No. 90/A-3, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya. By the said order, the Minister of State (Revenue) deleted the land bearing No. 1130 situated at Mouje Chikhali, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, which was acquired by the Government purportedly exercising power vested in him under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. FACTS :2. Petitioner is an authority which is established for the purpose of setting up a new township in Pimpri Chinchwad area by virtue of notification issued by the Government under Section 113(2) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (For short 'M.R.T.P. Act'). The petitioner - authority was established in the year 1972. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government for the benefit of the petitioner since 1972 and large tracts of land were sought to be acquired, admeasuring 2400...

Siemens Ltd. Vs. Babulal Ramlal Walmiki

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR477; [2005(107)FLR1154]; 2005(4)MhLj681

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1861 of 2003 is by the company impugning the award dated 21-12-2002 whereby the Seventh Labour Court at Mumbai has set aside the order of dismissal passed against the workman with effect from 15-12-1993 with a further direction to the company to reinstate the complainant with backwages to the extent of 50% and continuity of service.Writ Petition No. 2373 of 2003 is by the workman to impugn Part I of the Award dated 29-7-2000 whereby the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse. It is the case of the workman that the findings are based on no evidence and in these circumstances perverse and consequently the domestic enquiry ought not to have been relied upon. The workman also challenges the main award to the extent it has denied him 50% of the backwages.2. During the course of discussion in both these petitions, which are being disposed of by this common judgment as they are directed against...

Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR815; 2005(4)MhLj1060

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the award No. 1 dated 19-10-1996 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. Vahal 12/94.3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 427/1 situated in Village Vahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, having acquired possession and ownership thereof pursuant to Sale Deed dated 27-3-1962 from erstwhile owners of the land.4. In 1994, possession of 1 Hectare 72.6 Ares of the said property was sought to be acquired by CIDCO for the purpose of laying down water pipe line. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of 3 Hectares and 3 Ares came to be issued on 28-6-1994 which was objected to by the petitioner by filing objections on 9-8-1994. It was followed by necessary inquiry and, subsequently, declaration under section 6 of the said Act was issued on 5-12-1994. Individual notices under section 9 of the said Act came to be issued to the petitioner on 16-1-199...

Adelia Dos Remedios Vs. Anand Giri Keni (Deceased by Lrs).

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom421; 2006(1)ALLMR530; 2006(2)BomCR822; 2006(1)MhLj627

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J. 1. The first appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji on 23-7-1997. By the said Decree, the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit partly and directed the defendants Nos. 1 to 16 to sell the suit plot No. 43 to the plaintiff as agreed upon by them within 90 days from the date of decree.2. The original defendants No. 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are in appeal aggrieved by the said judgment and Decree.3. Anand Guiri Keni (since deceased) and now represented by his legal representatives (respondents No. 1 to 6 hereinafter, referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement, though styled as the suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction and damages. He set up the case in the plaint that by an agreement dated 12-7-1971, the late Luciano Jovita Francisco Pinto and his wife agreed to sell their property to Sharada Mandir Trust known as 'Nagally' and 'Queundem'...

Talsons Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR316; 2006(2)BomCR151; 2005(4)MhLj1038

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings which were initiated by issuing the notice under Section 4 on 1-4-1997, declaration under Section 6 on 29-4-1988 and passing of an award dated 14-6-2000 in Case No. LAQ/48 in relation to the land bearing Survey No. 23/2/1 situated at village Kondhwa Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The challenge is on the ground of failure on the part of the respondents to afford personal hearing to the petitioner under Section 5-A.3. The undisputed fact in the matter is that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property bearing Survey No, 23/2/1 situated at Kondhwa Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune and the same has been acquired pursuant to the impugned award dated 14-6-2000. The acquisition has been for the purpose of installation of 132 K. B. Sub Station. It is the case of the petitioner that though petitioner's name has been duly registered in the revenue records in relation to t...

Janhit Manch and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR834; 2006(2)MhLj284

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings have been instituted in the public interest and seek the 'enforcement of all legal provisions' for controlling noise pollution under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Noise Pollution (Control and Regulation) Rules, 2000 and directions issued in judicial pronouncements more particularly reproduced in the petition. Other reliefs have been sought including (i) institution of criminal proceedings; (ii) disciplinary action against errant officers; (iii) preparation of silence zone maps; (iv) a prohibition on the use of microphones and music in private premises resulting in noise pollution beyond the prescribed limit under the rules; (v) stipulation of norms for manufacturing fire crackers; (vi) destruction of fire crackers which violate the prescribed rules; and (vii) creation of awareness in regard to the observance of the Noise Pollution Rules.2. The reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings are substantially, if not in their e...

Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Jayant Industrial Packaging Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR761; [2006]66SCL289(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings.2. This matter raises interesting question of law. The background in which the present Chamber Summons has been filed is that the petitioners have initiated reference proceedings before the Arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for recovery of sum of over Rs. 3.61 crores from the respondents and the applicant. During the pendency of the said reference proceedings, the petitioners took out application before the Arbitrator purported to be under Section 96 of the Act, for attachment of certain properties belonging to the applicant, before Award. It is common ground that the property sought to be attached in terms of the said Application taken out by the petitioners, is not mortgaged by the respondents or the Applicant in respect of the claim under reference for recovery of money under Section 84 of the Act. Nevertheless, the Arbitrato...