Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments

Neeljyot Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT688Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both sides are agreed that the question for consideration in this appeal, the liability to duty of the master batches manufactured by the appellant and the duty actually paid, for the reason that Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in such manufacture would be entitled as credit, had been decided by the Tribunal in its decision in appeals 4321 & 4323/94-C in Ridhi Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat passed by the Tribunal in Delhi. In that order the Tribunal had held master batches to be liable to duty but held at the same time that the manufacturer was entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of such master batches. Extending the benefit of doubt to the assessee he set aside the penalty imposed and confiscation ordered of plant and machinery.2. Following that order we hold that the duty is payable on the master batches. The actual amount of duty payable by the appellant should be calculated after giving it the benefit of Modvat c...

Subhangi Tukaram Sawant Vs. R.H. Mendonca and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1819; 2001BomCR(Cri)152; (2001)4BOMLR631; 2001CriLJ3745; 2001(3)MhLj580

S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. In both the above writ petitions, detention orders passed by the first Respondent - Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 have been challenged and the detenus Tukaram Bhaskar Sawant and Raju Bhagwan Gupta have been described as dangerous persons. Earlier both the writ petitions came up before the Division Bench of this Court and in view of the conflicting views of the various Division Benches of this High Court. with regard to the meaning of 'dangerous person' the Division Bench by its order dated 25th April. 2000 had directed the Registrar to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench, to resolve the conflict as to whether it is imperative that a person must have to. his discredit two or more convictions before he can be detained as a 'dangerous person', as per Section 2(b-i)...

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Vs. Daulat Narsingrao Deshmukh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR215; 2001(2)BomCR728; [2001(90)FLR636]; (2001)IILLJ1619Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith and matter is taken up for final hearing by consent. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service.The present proceedings arise out of an order dated October 29, 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1992. The first respondent was engaged initially as a writing Mukadam on a work-charged establishment under an order issued by the Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Shrigonda. In August 1976 he was engaged as a Mustering Assistant for the purpose of work which was to be executed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. Subsequent orders were also issued thereafter from time to time and from the award of the Labour Court it emerges that the first respondent continued to work as a Muster Assistant until June 30, 1986. The first respondent, it appears, was not engaged between the period from July 24, 1984 until December 31, 1985. Upon t...

Berger Paints India Limited Vs. Chandrakant N. Raut and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ850Bom

S.K. Shah, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.2. This Writ Petition impugns Award Part-1 passed in Reference (IDA) No. 880 of 1991 by the learned Judge, 12th Labour Court, Mumbai on August 19, 1998, whereby he held that the second party workman is a workman covered by the definition under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. The short question involved in this matter is whether Respondent no. 1 is or is not workman covered by the definition of the workman in Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.4. The Petitioner is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Calcutta and a Branch Sales Office in Mumbai. Initially Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Sales Representative in 1986 and subsequently in 1988 he was promoted to the post of Senior Sales Representative working in the Branch Office in Mumbai. As a part of duty of Respondent No. 1, he was required to furnish daily reports and end-us...

Vynkappa Chandrayya Kanaki Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)19; 2001(5)BomCR202

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st August, 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 7/93, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under:The deceased Muktabai was the wife of the appellant and at the time of the incident was residing with him in Gandhi Nagar Zopadpatti No. 3, Solapur. On the date of the incident i.e. 28-11-1995 at about 10 a.m. the deceased asked the appellant who was not going for any work to do some work because they had three children. This enraged the appellant who started abusing and beating her. Thereafter he took the stove and poured kerosene oil therefrom on the person of the deceased, lighted a match stick and set her on fire. As the deceased was wearing a p...

Subhash Dnyanoba Salvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)10; 2001(5)BomCR152

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Four persons namely Laxmibai Dnyanoba Salvi, Shobha Subhash Salvi, Balu Trimbak Uchale @ Jadhav and Subhash Dnyanoba Salvi were charged for the offences punishable under section 302 I.P.C., in the alternative under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C., 323 I.P.C. in the alternative 323 read with section 34 I.P.C. and 504 read with section 34 I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge. Pune in Sessions Case No. 8/1994. Through his judgment dated 27-8-1996, the learned Judge acquitted Balu Trimbak Uchale @ Jadhav for all the offences : acquitted Laxmibai Dnyanoba Salvi and Shobha Subhash Salvi for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 302 I.P.C. ; and acquitted Subhash Dnyanoba Salvi for the offence punishable under sections 323 and 504 read with section 34 I.P.C. He however, convicted Laxmibai Dnyanoba Salvi and Shobha Subhash Salvi for the offence under section 504 I.P.C. and sentenced them to S.I., till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/each ...

Bamni Proteins Limited Vs. Ajay (Shri)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR744

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Deo, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The contempt petition is preferred by the petitioner for violation of the order dated 23-8-1999, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1999.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner manufactures Ossein and Di-Calcium Phosphate (Animal Feed Grade) ('DCP'). It is further submitted that the respondent issued show cause notice on 3-3-1997 and trade notice dated 31-3-1997 whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the Di-Calcium Phosphate (Animal Feed Grade) should not be classified under Chapter Sub-heading No. 2835.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting Central Excise Duty @ 6 per cent ad valorem and why the Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 29,16,883/- should not be demanded and recovered from the petitioner under Rule 9(2) read with section 11-A of the Central Excise ...

Waghchoure Baliram Vithalrao Vs. President Shri Uttamrao Parashram Sav ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR190

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 9-4-1986 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 3/1985, as well as, the orders dated 27-8-1984 and 1-3-1985, passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to be null and void. The challenge is to the reduction in rank of the petitioner from Head Master's post to a post of permanent teacher in the school run by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the challenge to the reduction in the post is on two grounds. Firstly, that the school authorities have not followed the mandatory provisions of Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules') inasmuch as the petitioner was not given opportunity to nominate his nominee on the Enquiry Committee, and secondly, that the reduction in the ran...

Samudra Electronic Systems P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC618

1. Out of these eight appeals, Samudra Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. (E/253/96), S.D. Deshpande (E/507/96), G.K. Agashe (E/544/96), H.D.Bhagwat (E/545/96), P.M. Thote (E/547/96) have settled the dispute under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 and certificates for full and final settlement has been issued by competent authority. These appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.2. The remaining three appellants, N.B. Bodhale, S.Y. Vadalkar, K.M.Bhanu were Directors of Samudra Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. As held by the Kerala High Court in its judgment in Tom K. Thomas v. UOI and Ors.in Order No. 16334 of 1999, the action against the co-noticee will abate when the principle noticee has settled the issued under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. These appeals would also have to be treated as having been settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and accordingly dismissed....

Dhl Worldwide Express Vs. Commr. of Cus., Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The delay of a day in filing appeal C/373/2000 is condoned. After hearing both sides on the stay application, we have decided to take up the appeals themselves for disposal.2. These eight appeals are filed by couriers operating in the Sahar Airport against the order of the Commissioner of Customs directing forfeiture of security of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by each of the appellants with him.3. The reason that the Commissioner has advanced for ordering forfeiture is that the application for renewal of the registration as an authorised courier under the Courier Imports and Exports Clearance Regulations, 1998 was not filed one month prior to the date on which the registration already granted to each of the appellants was to expire.4. Regulations 7 to 10 of these Regulations provide for registration of a person as an Authorised Courier. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 10 provides that the registration granted under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 10 shall be valid for a period of three y...