Mumbai Court December 2000 Judgments
Ramkrishna Vidyut Ayurvedic Vs. Cce and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT122Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We had heard the counsel for the appellant and departmental representative yesterday, and for want of time, listed the appeal today for dictation.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Mahabhringraj Tel manufactured by the appellant is classifiable as an ayurvedic medicament under Heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector that the oil is a preparation for use on the hair and more properly classifiable under Heading 33.05 of the Tariff.3. The advocate for the appellant produces before us a decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Pune v. Ramkrishna Vidyut in Appeal E/252/93 [2000 (125) E.L.T. 748 (T)] decided by the Delhi Bench in which classification of the product under Heading 3003.30 has been confirmed.This decision has been followed by a Bombay Bench in 2000 (118) ELT 618. No Treason is forthcoming from the Departmental Representative as to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dempo Engineering Services Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT753Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant in these two appeals was engaged in a contract by M/s.National Auto Accessories Limited, Margoa for erection of its factory.The appellant also entered into a contract with M/s. Diamond Boart India Pvt. Ltd., for erection of its factory at Kundaim, Goa. We are concerned in appeal E/4309/94 of the consequence of the first contract, and in appeal E/4310/94 with those of the second contract. In each of these cases, the appellant sub-contracted the fabrication of the roofing structures for the factories. The fabrication involved construction of beams, trusses and purlins, all of steel. These beams and trusses, etc., were fabricated by subjecting angles and channels of steel sheets to cutting, drilling, punching, etc. Such sections so processed thereafter assembled at the site of the factory. In the orders impugned before us, the Collector has held that these activities constitute manufacture.2. The identical activities carried out by the appellant in pursuance of another c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Formica India Division
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT743Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of glossy aluminium sheets laminated with a combination of kraft paper and resin. The process of manufacture explained in the undated note of O.P. Chabra, Manager of the respondent, indicates that the kraft paper is impregnated with a solution of resin. An aluminium sheet placed upon layers of such paper, and the whole is subjected to pressure and heat, as a result of which the different materials bond together.2. The manufacturer had classified this product under Heading 7606.10 of the tariff. This heading at the relevant time was for aluminium plates, sheets (including circles) and strips of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm. The Department took the view that the goods were rightly classifiable under Chapter 39, as a manufacture of plastic, for the reason that Heading 70.06 was specific for aluminium sheets backed with any other material and it did not take into its scope aluminium laminated with other material. The...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Krishna Antrolikar Vs. the Commissioner, Prohibition and State E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR693; (2001)2BOMLR684
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 the of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 29.9.1993 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 13.9.1996 in Original Application No. 1084 of 1993. The Petitioner has also prayed for a relief that the Respondents be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits as to back wages with effect from 29.9.1993.2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was posted at E Division, Bombay in Executive Cadre at the relevant time in 1990. The Petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector in the State Excise Department. The Petitioner was however placed under suspension by an order dated 1.1.1992 of the Commissioner. Prohibition and State Excise, Mumbai. The order of suspension was followed by the disciplinary proceedings for the alleged misconduct of having failed to maintain absolute integrity and maintain devotion to duty. The Petitioner was served wi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savita Shankar Lokhande Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)846; (2001)2BOMLR724; 2001CriLJ2367; 2001(2)MhLj410
A. M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, the wife of Shankar @ Shankrya Ramchandra Lokhande (hereinafter referred to as the Detenu), has challenged the order of detention passed by Shri M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, dated 5.8.2000 against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers. Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act). 2. Although several grounds have been raised in the writ petition, however, in our view, it would be futile to embark upon detail investigation into each one of them, for we are inclined to accept the plea that the detention order is vitiated and deserves to be set aside because of the inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the same. We would therefore, confine our discussion in the present judgment only with regard to the said question.3. For considering the...
Tag this Judgment!Christine Hoden (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR221; 2001(4)BomCR301; [2001(91)FLR1233]; (2002)IVLLJ454Bom
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing by consent.2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-company, Christine Hoden (I) Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved by the order dated October 31, 2000, passed by the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Goa. By the impugned order, the Labour Commissioner directed that the amount of Rs. 1,69,786, which was deposited by the petitioner-company with the High Court as per its order should not be withheld and be distributed among the workmen as per their entitlement. This order was passed by the High Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 115 of 1996, filed by the petitioner-company against the State of Goa and others, challenging recovery certificate dated January 12, 1996.3. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows: The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The workmen of the petitioner-company claimed to be members of respondent No. 3-unio...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Marle Dos Santos Braganza Vs. Aldino Santos Braganza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR801
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This first appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant/wife being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th March, 1999 passed by the IInd Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 85/91/A/II whereby the suit of the plaintiff/husband/respondent herein came to be decreed and the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to be cancelled by a Decree of Divorce.2. A few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows :The original plaintiff Aldino Santos Braganza got married with the original defendant Marle Dos Santos Braganza on 19-4-87. Out of the wedlock, one male child by name Armando was born on 16-3-1988. The plaintiff was resident of Assagao and was staying in his ancestral house, while the defendant at the time of filing of the suit was residing at Verla, Parra. The plaintiff was working abroad and was periodically coming to Goa.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant left the conjugal d...
Tag this Judgment!Desiderio Santan Sebastiao Pretto Vs. Mrs. Natalina Filomena Gomes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR211; I(2002)DMC78
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This first appeal is filed by the appellant/husband Desiderio Santan Sebastiao Pretto being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.8.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 125/93/A. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff which he had filed praying for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/defendant, Natalina.2. The appellant's case is that he got married to the respondent on 27.12.1966. Three children were born of this wedlock, who are with the wife. The case of the appellant is that in the year 1972, the respondent deserted the conjugal house and was living at Marwado, Mapusa. According to the appellant, the respondent refused to live with the appellant and started saying that the appellant should come and live with her at Tivim. The appellant tried to reconcile and in fact, stayed with her at Tivim for sometimes ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Sabaji Kandalkar Vs. Tahsildar, Sangamner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR606; 2002(1)MhLj881
1. Heard Shri S.R. Barlinge, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri C.K. Shinde, learned A.G.P. for respondent State and Shri N.C. Garud, learned Advocate for the respondent.2. In this writ petition, very interesting question is raised as to whether the Collector acting under Sub-section (3B) of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1958) has power to condone the delay by pressing into service the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of village panchayat, Talegaon Dighe, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The respondents Nos. 3 to 13 are the members of the village panchayat Talegaon Dighe.4. A motion of no-confidence was moved against the petitioner. The Tahsildar, Sangamner was pleased to call the meeting on 20th October, 2000. The petitioner could not remain present in the meeting as he was suffering from Hepatitis and was under medical treatment from 19-10-2000 to...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Vinayak Bhende Vs. Dean, Goa Medical College and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR761
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, as in both these writ petitions the facts, the grounds for assailing the validity of the Rules as also the prayers are common.2. In Writ Petitions No. 303/2000, the petitioner, Dr. Vishal Vinayak Bhende has challenged the constitutional validity of Rules III(2)(a) and III(2)(b) and III(3) of the Admission of Post Graduate Degree Courses of Goa University at Goa Medical College Rules, 1998 (PG Admission Rules, 1998, for short).3. In Writ Petition No. 349/2000, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3(2) of the Goa (Admission to Post Graduate Diploma Courses of Goa University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1999 (Diploma Admission Rules, for short).4. In Writ Petition No. 303/2000, the petitioner has prayed for declaration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that Rules III(2)(a) and III(2)(b), so also Rule III(3) (this ground was subsequently, giv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »