Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Cus. (Exports) Vs. Bd and P Hotels (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, revenue has filed the present appeal.2. As per the facts on record, the respondent imported one vehicle of make/model Range Rover against EPCG Licence issued by the DGFT, Mumbai, showing the port of registration as "Mumbai Air Port", for clearance of the vehicle. The revenue's objection is that in terms of Para 2(11)(d) of Notification No. 29/RE-2004/2002-2007, import of new vehicle is allowed through certain ports and Mumbai is not a specified port for import of new vehicle. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated, which culminated into impugned order passed by the Commissioner imposing redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-, however, no penalty was imposed.3. I do not find any infirmity in the above order. Inasmuch as admittedly the registration issued by the DGFT was with Mumbai Airport as port of clearance, no fault can be found with the importer for clearance of the car at the said port. As such, I find no merit in...

Javed @ Java Ahmed Mohammed Akbar Bhatt and ors. Vs. the State of Maha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1386

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The accused who have been convicted under Section 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment have challenged their conviction and sentence by preferring the present appeal. They have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. The accused have been acquitted in respect of the other offences for which they were charged namely Sections 120B, 121A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The charge against the accused is that they were members of a terrorist organisation Hijbul Mujahid and that on 23.10.2001 they had indulged in a conspiracy towage war against the Government of India and had collected men, arms and ammunition without licence, in breach of the Arms Act with the intention of indulging in or being prepared to wage war against the Government of India. The prosecution alleges that on 24.10.2001, the police on information received,...

Yeshwant Sahakari Kamgar Bank Ltd. (Not Known as Brahmadev Dada Mane S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR520; 2007(5)BomCR647; (2007)109BOMLR438; [2007(113)FLR1131]; 2007(3)MhLj334

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. Rule, By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner challenges order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal in A.T.A. No. 480(9)/2003. By the impugned order the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that it was barred by law of Limitation, while refusing to condone the delay.4. Few facts relevant for the decision in the matter are that on 27th June, 2000, the petitioner was allotted Code Number under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 giving retrospective effect from 1st October, 1997. The directions issued by the Authorities under the said Act were complied with by the petitioner on 1st October, 2001. Further, the respondents herein issued an order dated 19th December, 2001 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,09,022/- towards the interest under the provisions of Se...

Dharen K. Upadhyay and ors. Vs. India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR570; 2007(4)BomCR207; 2007(3)MhLj38

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the counsel. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.2. These two appeals are directed against the common order dated 26th June, 2006 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No. 4264 of 2004 in L.C. Suit No. 4614 of 2004 and Notice of Motion No. 1435 of 2004 in L.C. Suit No. 5020 of 2004.2. The respondent No. 1 in AO No. 516 of 2006 - India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') is the owner of the property bearing plot 2/4 at TPS I, Vile Parle (East) at Mongibai Road, Mumbai 400057, (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The property is a large piece of land and faces Mongibai Road. Back side of the suit property abuts Lala Bhishambharnath Road. A sketch of the property is annexed to the inspection report dated 7th November, 2006 filed by the Court Commissioner.3. Mongibai Road has been declared as hawking zone by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short 'the MMC...

Pfizer Employees Union Vs. Pfizer Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR240]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Industrial Court has dismissed a complaint of unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.Pfizer was engaged in the production of Protinex, a dietary supplement. On 27th November, 2002 a communication was addressed on behalf of the Company to its employees in India recording the transfer by Pfizer Products Inc., USA of the trade mark 'Protinex' to a Danish food company. Pfizer India, in turn, had entered into three year 'phased sales-transition co-promotion and manufacturing support agreements' with the Danish Company. That led to the institution of the complaint before the Industrial Court.2. The defence of the first respondent to the complaint was that the trade mark 'Protinex' was owned by a US based Company, Pfizer Product Inc., while the technology for the manufacture of the product was owned by Pfizer Corporation, ...

Kalyan Singh, Umed Singh Vs. Vecare Dyers and Cleaners Pvt. Ltd. and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR148]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a dry cleaner with the First Respondent. The undertaking of the First Respondent came to be transferred to the Second Respondent upon which the petitioner became an employee of the Second Respondent. The petitioner came to be suspended from service on 16th June, 1993 and a charge-sheet was issued on 21st June, 1993. After a disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service in December 1993. A demand for reinstatement was raised which was thereafter referred to adjudication.2. During the pendency of the reference, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the Bombay Labour Union. The settlement inter alia provided a package deal to all the workmen whose names are contained in Annexure-A to the settlement. Clause (2) of the settlement provided that on 10th September, 1993, there was a severance of all the workmen who would be deemed to have resigned from service. The amount due and payable to each of the wor...

Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC161

1. This is an appeal against the Commissioner's Order No. V.Adj (Ch.84) 15-30/2002 dated 20.01.2003 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the differential duty amounting to Rs. 13,31,38,723.69 short paid during the period 1.3.87 to 28.2.95.2. Heard Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned Jt. CDR for the department.3. The relevant facts, in brief, as seen from the records of the case are as follows: (i) The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Lift/Escalator and parts thereof falling under Chapter heading 84 of the CETA, 1985. (ii) Show Cause Notice dated 29.3.95 was issued proposing differential duty on the ground that the assessee has mis-classified their product manufactured by them namely parts of lifts 85 escalators classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 8431 as lifts and escalators under Chapter Sub-heading 8428 though they were removing only parts of lifts & escalators. Proposal also included invocation of penal action and deman...

Alliance Engineering Company Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant made the claim for refund of duty paid on Fluid Bed Dryers falling under Chapter 84 and cleared on payment of duty to M/s Cheminor Drugs Ltd., which is a 100% EOU. As per the appellant, the goods were exempted on production of CT-3 certificate and in terms of Notification No. 1/95 dated 4.1.1995. It is their case that they had a requisite CT-3 certificate and duty was paid by mistake. The original adjudicating authority after issuing the show cause notice, rejected the refund claim on the ground on non-fulfillment of Notification's condition and unjust enrichment. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same by observing that one of the conditions mentioned in Para-1 of Notification in requiring following of procedure as contained under Rule 156A and Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, does not stand satisfied by the appellant. He held that such procedural laps is cannot be accepted because, if such lapses are allowed, it may fa...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Epcos India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of excisable goods viz.Plastic Film Capacitor falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8532.00 were paying Central Excise duty at the normal effective rate of 16% ad valorem on their final products and also availing Cenvat credit facility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 in respect of duty paid on inputs required for the manufacture of their final product.2. Some inputs were sold to them by 100% EOU in DTA. As per Rule 3(6)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, Cenvat credit on inputs produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU was restricted to the extent equal to the Additional Duty of Customs leviable on like goods under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. During the period August 2001 to February 2002, the respondents received Basic Cells (inputs) falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8532.00 from the 100%. EOU. The assessable value of the inputs was Rs. 24,48,823/- on which duty paid was Rs. 4,51,053/- @ 18.42% and credit of the same a...

Power Cell Battery (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide impugned orders authorities below have confiscated consignment of imported dry cell batteries in terms of the provisions of Sections 111(d) and 112(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 54,80,000/-. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed and the goods have been ordered to be assessed for CVD basis of MRP of Rs. 8/- per piece.2. At the very outset, Shri T. Vishwanathan the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in this particular case, they are not disputing the confirmation of CVD on the basis of MRP of Rs. 8/- per piece inasmuch as, the goods are lying with the Revenue for a long period and have suffered huge demurrages. However, he submits that liberty may be given to them to reserve their right to contest the said issue in future.3. In view of the above statement we confirm the confirmation of CVD on MRP of Rs. 8/- per piece, as held by the authorities below, we m...