Mumbai Court August 2000 Judgments
Bhuvaneshwaran M.K. Vs. Premier Tyres Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR300]; (2001)IIILLJ669Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Labour Court in a complaint filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices, Act, 1971 set aside the order of dismissal of the workman in question on the ground that though the misconduct had been proved, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. In a revision under Section 44 of the Act, the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court holding that the complaint which had been filed before the Labour Court, was barred by limitation and that the past record of the workman did not justify the order of reinstatement. The order of Industrial Court in allowing the revision and setting aside the order of reinstatement is impugned in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner workman has since attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the grant of relief, if any, can only be in regard to the payment of back wages.2. The petitioner joined the serv...
Tag this Judgment!Rahibai Ladkya Patil Since Deceased by Her Heir Waman Narayan Patil Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR420
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner had filed a suit as Civil Suit No. 430 of 1971 against the respondents for injunction restraining them from disturbing the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be the tenant of an agricultural land admeasuring 2 acres 20 gunthas in Survey No. 77/3. The claim of tenancy made by the petitioner in the suit, was contested by the respondents. In that circumstances, the question of tenancy was referred to by the Civil Judge J.D. under section 18-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1940 to the Tahsildar, A.L.T. Thane. The Tahsildar registered the case as Tenancy Case No. 12/1977 and by its order dated 3rd August 1978, the claim of the tenancy made by the petitioner in respect of the suit land was found against. Against that finding, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Thane. The Additional Collector, Thane registered the appeal TNC/Appeal/18/1979 and passed an order dated 31-3-1982 dis...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. M.K. Bhuvaneshwaran Vs. Premier Tyres Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR766; (2000)102BOMLR692
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Labour Court in a complaint filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 set aside the order of dismissal of the workman in question on the ground that though the misconduct had been proved, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. In a Revision under Section 44 of the Act, the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court holding that the complaint which had been filed before the Labour Court, was barred by limitation and that the past record of the workman did not justify the order of reinstatement. The order of Industrial Court in allowing the revision and setting aside the order of reinstatement is impugned in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner workman has since attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the grant of relief, if any, can only be in regard to the payment of back wages.2. The petitioner joined the servic...
Tag this Judgment!Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT320Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant filed 56 refund claims (one for each bill of entry in which the goods were cleared) to the Assistant Collector at Kandla Customs House in August, 1988 seeking refund of the difference of duty payable according to the decision of the Bombay High Court and the duty actually paid. The claim was not acted upon for six years. By order passed in 1994, the Assistant Collector held the claim (except for a small amount) to be admissible on merits but held that, the appellant had not proved, as was required by application of Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act, as it stood after its amendment after 1991, that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. He therefore ordered it to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. This order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal filed by the importer. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the advocate for the appellant is that the refund arose as a consequence of the finalisation of provisional assessment.It was no...
Tag this Judgment!Statfield Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC165
1. These group of 9 Appeals have been filed against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, made in Order No. 46/CEX/1990 dated 20th November, 1990 confirming the Show Cause Notice issued on 16th January, 1989 whereby he had confirmed. (A) The duty demand of Rs. 13,47,043.40 under annexures 'C-I' to 'C-III' of the Show Cause Notice i.e. Rs. 13 Lakhs consists of the following: (a) Inclusion, non-inclusion of raw material costs in the assessable value of Statfield Systems (Coating) Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal No. 5244 of 1991)--Turnover of Rs. 4,48,600 excluded of raw material. Demand of under-valuation by Statfield Equipments (Appeal No. 5240 of 1991) by way of separate recovery of design and engineering charges through related persons i.e. Intelligent Conveyors & Stackers Pvt. Ltd. (Appeals No. 5241 of 1991) for the period 1986-87,1987-88 up to 1st March 1988, amount involved for year:1986-87 Rs. 5.84,140 The demand showing under-valuation by Minilec Control Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Omkar Textile Mills Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT115Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Each of the two respondents to these appeals was engaged in processing of bleached fabrics received in its factory. After such processing the fabrics were removed without payment of duty in terms of notification 47/94 by following the chapter X procedure to persons, manufacturing unspecified textile articles out this. These articles were exported. Each of the respondents had taken Modvat credit on the duty paid on the fabrics. Three notices were issued to M/s. Omkar Textile Mills and one to M/s. Alok Synthetics, proposing to recover Modvat credit on the ground that it is only the credit of duty paid on partially process fabrics which can be taken and not that on bleached fabrics. Adjudicating on the notices the Assistant Commissioner held in two of his orders, which are subject matter of appeals E/3395/99 and E/3396/99 that credit could not be denied on the ground that the bleached fabrics were not inputs. In one of the other two orders he suggests although he does not clearly spec...
Tag this Judgment!Farzana Salam Nakhawa (Smt.) Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca Commissioner of Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR144
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner, who is wife of detenu, seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 30-09-1999 (Annexure 'A') issued under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (respondent No. 1) empowered under section 3(2) and for release of detenu forthwith.2. Though diverse grounds have been set out in the writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of detention, during the course of arguments, Mr. V.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, pressed the additional ground 6(D) in support of the prayer made in the writ petition.3. Ground 6(D) which has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reads thus :----'6(D) The petitioner says and submits that the detenu was detained under section 3(1) of MPDA Act, 1981 in pursuance of an order passed on 30-9-1999 by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Telco Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC433
1. These two appeals from Revenue are against the same impugned order and are therefore, being disposed of together vide this single order.2. The respondents manufactured motor vehicles and claimed inputs stage credit of duty paid on music system and parts thereof as well as air-conditioning kits on the ground that such inputs were fitted in the motor vehicle. This availment was contested by the department by two show cause notices. The Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune-II held that music systems and air-conditioning kits were inputs under the Modvat scheme. The Revenue seeks to challenge this finding in the present proceedings.3. We have heard Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR for the Revenue and Shri V.Sreedharan, Advocate appearing along with Shri Nambirajan, Advocate for the respondents.4. We find that this issue was settled in the case of CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [1999 (107) E.L.T. 118 (Tri.)]. In this judgment, the Tribunal held that clock assembly, radio, audio system used in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT138Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to notification 128/94 of goods described as "Stud Tensioning Device" imported by the respondent. The Assistant Commissioner had denied the benefit of the notification. On appeal from this order the Collector (Appeals) found that it would be available. Hence this appeal by the department.2. It is common ground that the stud tensioning device is a machine which is used to ensure the required degree of tension on the studs which form part of the manhole cover of the pre-heater which is manufactured by the respondent. The notification exempts import of 'materials' used for manufacture of final products.3. 'Materials' is defined in the explanation to notification as follows : "(a) raw materials, components, intermediates, consumables, computer software and parts required for the manufacture of final goods; (b) packing materials required for the packing of final goods to be supplied;" 4. It is the contention in the departm...
Tag this Judgment!Pro-fashional Computers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT697Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two applications for stay when came up for hearing, it was felt that the appeals themselves could be disposed of as the question involved in these appeals lie in a narrow compass. This was done, with the consent of both the sides and after waiving pre-deposit.2. The appellants in their memoranda of appeals state that they are engaged mainly in the activities of maintenance of computer systems and also in the supply of duty paid computer systems, monitors, peripherals, accessories like printers, voltage stabilizers, various add-on cards, terminals etc. They stopped their activities with effect from 31-3-1997. The other appellant in Appeal No. 1505/2000/Mum is owned by the proprietor Manoj Gala also operating from the same premises and they were also carrying on the same type of activities mentioned above. The Department felt that the activities of the appellants would attract the provisions of the Central Excise Act and various Rules, which resulted in show cause notice issued...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »