Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Randhirsingh S/O Govardhansingh Bhadoriya Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)MhLj531

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Parchure, Mr. Lambat, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respective petitioners; Mr. Gavai, learned Govt. Pleader for the respective respondents; Mr. Charade, and Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for respective Municipal Councils. 2. These three writ petitions are concerning the elections to the office of the President of the three respective Municipal Councils, viz. Umrer Municipal Council, Pulgaon Municipal Council and Wani Municipal Council, which elections are governed under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the said Act). As far as the Umrer Municipal Council is concerned, the election is already held. The election to the Pulgaon Municipal Council is to be held on 9th of December, and as far as Wani Municipal Council is concerned. Notification for the proposed election is not issued as yet. 3. The petitioner in the first writ petition concer...

Haribhau S/O. Gaman Waghchaure Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1011]; (2002)ILLJ1129Bom; 2002(1)CLR383

R.M. Lodha, J. Heard Mr. Shrichetan Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.R. Singh, the learned A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated July 23, 1999 whereby the learned single Judge upheld the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the reference on the ground that notice of demand was made by the appellant herein after ten years of his termination. 3. The learned single Judge in the impugned order observed that the delay of ten years in raising the demand from the date of termination cannot be ignored. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-op. Marketing cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr. : (1999)ILLJ1260SC which was also cited before the learned single Judge. In Ajaib Singh's casethe Apex Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the report held thus at pp. 1264 & 1265 of LLJ: '10. It follows, there...

Gelsules Medicaps P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Ex., Mumbai-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT130Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty of Rs. 4.30 lakhs approx. has been demanded on the ground that the goods that the applicant manufactured were rightly classifiable as mixture of vitamin under 29.36 of the Tariff and liable to duty at the rate specified therein and not as medicaments classifiable under 30.03 at a lower rate of duty.2. Representative of the applicant accepts that the goods are mixtures of medicaments. He contends that duty of Rs. 2.25 lakhs approx. related to goods which are exported. There is no question of paying duty on these goods. The Commissioner has not given any finding on this contention. From the document that the applicant has produced, it appears prima facie that the goods have in fact been exported. Duty prima facie would not be payable on these goods.3. The remaining amount of duty has been demanded on Vitamin E cleared for home consumption. The contention of the representative of the applicant that it is a medicament used to treat illness is not in our prima facie view satisfied ...

Hashiem Aligholi Pour Hamani and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC414

1. This condonation of Delay application is taken up for hearing, there is a delay of 31 days from the date of receipt of the order for filing the appeal. Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the order was served through the Superintendent of Arthur Road Jail. The delay was caused because the appellant was released from the Jail in Feb'01. The order is dated 19.04.01. The revenue has no objection for condonation of the delay. The delay is condoned.2. The stay application is taken up for consideration. The Ld. Advocate submits that the applicant was interpreted at Sahar Airport while he was on the way to Singapore. Foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 29 Lacs was found from his hand baggage. The said currency has been seized and ordered to be redeemed on a payment of fine of Rs. 3 Lacs. The said currency is still not redeemed. The Ld. Advocate submits that the applicant status i.e. owner of the currency or that of a mere carrier is not known to him. The applicant has be...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Lumax Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC406

1. This application is taken up for decision by this common order as the appeals by Revenue arise out of a common order of Commissioner (Appeals) which disposes of two matters by a common order.2. The application for condonation of delay filed in appeal no.C/812-01-Mum i.e. C/COD-577/01-Mum is formal COD, since the other appeal was filed within time, the same is granted. I have both the sides and considered the matter and find that :-(a) the issue involved is interpretation of the Import Control Policy for the relevant period i.e. does the Policy for the relevant period did not permit import of adhesive based on Rubber, interalia, other items. The Revenue is alleging that the imports to be not permissible, since it is their case that it is in the nature of consumer goods, in as much as they are consumer goods and they are specifically mentioned by name in the list of Restricted items in the relevant period at Sr. No. 45. (b) find that the Commissioner has come to the following finding...

Polycem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC433

1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector where in he has confirmed the recovery of duty no paid on the goods removed without accounting the same and imposed a penalty. After hearing both the side for some time, it was successfully pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants that a plea had been taken by them in Para 3 of their reply dt. 15.04.94, as regards certain large quantities of the goods received back by them under the provisions of Rule 173 H for reprocessing, along with the registers produced in evidence thereof, which was not considered by the adjudicator. If this quantity of reprocessed goods was considered, the Collector he could have come to a conclusion about the exact quantity of goods not accounted or the quantum of clandestine clearance. Since the appellant submits that this fact has not been considered by the adjudicator to which the Ld. D.R.agrees, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order and remanding the mater back to the Collector for de...

Hindustan Transmission Products Vs. C.C. Ex., Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for out of turn hearing mainly alleges financial hardship on the ground that the applicant is a sick industry. It is also contended that the applicant's case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Kaushal Foundary and Engineers v. CCE 2. We do not consider financial hardship sufficient to justify out of turn hearing of this appeal against the order of the Commissioner fixing a redemption fine of Rs. 20,00 lakhs for redemption of the goods seized from the applicant and imposing a penalty on it of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. We do not find prima facie that the case is covered by the cited decision of the Tribunal....

Emmes Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC434

1. This appeal, has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has denied the modvat credit availed and allowed on the basis of a xerox copy of the bill of entry no. 4884 dt. 21.04.94. With the consent of both the sides and after waiver of pre-deposit and hearing them, I take up this matter for final disposal; and I find. a.) The credit, as it appears from the order in original of the Assistant Collector, granting the credit, which has been set aside by the Commissioner Appeals, against which the present appeal has been filed, was availed on xerox copy of the Bill of entry no. 4884 dt. 21.04.94. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant at the time of hearing submits that it was not a xerox copy, but it was a reconstructed copy which was obtained from the Custom House, on basis of which the credit was availed as the triplicate copy was lost. This reconstructed copy was obtained as per the directions given by the department. He also submits that a two member bench in the c...

Rajaram Dipoo Khatik Vs. Shriram Mills and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj74

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Writ Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court dated 12th May 1993 dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') on the ground that the approach of the Petitioner was not made within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.2. The Petitioner was a permanent workman since 1961 with Respondent No. 1 Mill. After the textile strike in the year 1982, the Petitioner was not given any work for some period of time. The Petitioner reported for duly almost every day, but he was not permitted to work in the Mill. On 19th June 1984, the Petitioner called upon Respondent No. 1 Mill to give him work. He informed Respondent No. 1 by the said letter that it was because of the dangerous situation and closure of Mills during the strike period that he could not attend work. He also mentioned that he was given...

Plethico Pharmaceuticals and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)402; (2002)3BOMLR41; 2002(2)MhLj444

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for State.2. Applicant is prosecuted for having committed offences under Sections 18(a)(i) readwith Sections 17, 17-A and 17-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27 of the said Act. The Drug Inspector Mr. V.K. Biyani visited the establishment M/s Shah Hiralal Tejulal Medical Stores, at Post Balapur, District : Akola, on 3-5-1991 and was taken sample of Ampicillin and Cloxacillin for oral suspension 2-PEN, out of Batch No. 0056, Manufacturing Date 10/90, Expiry Date 2/92 of which M/s Plenthico Pharmaceuticals, A. B. Road, Manglia (M.P.) are the manufacturers. On 4-5-1991 the said drug samples were sent to Government Analyst, Maharashtra State, Mumbailebelled for necessary analysis. The Government Analyst submitted his report in form No. 13 vide No. M-2321 of 1991 dated 17-7-1991 and declared that the sample 2-PEN, Batch No. 0056 to be not of standard quality for the r...